Who or which?

In current English the relative pronoun “who” refers to humans persons (more broadly, intelligent beings), as in:

  1. I know the athlete who took State in the pole vault.
  2. Women who visit this blog are outnumbered by men.
  3. Angels who help us have important work.

The relative pronoun “which” refers to non-humans persons:

  1. The dog which woke me up with its barking last night belongs to our neighbor.
  2. The ice which built up in the river near us is now all gone.

Yet there are some instances in the KJV where “which” refers to a human person, for example:

  1. And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. (Gen. 14:20)
  2. How much more abominable and filthy [is] man, which drinketh iniquity like water? (Job 15:17)
  3. My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth. (Psalm 121:2)
  4. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. (Phil. 4:13)
  5. And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven (Rev. 10:6)

At other times the KJV translators used “who” to refer to a human person, as in:

  1. And the children of Israel remembered not the LORD their God, who had delivered them out of the hands of all their enemies on every side (Judges 8:34)
  2. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. (Ps. 37:8)
  3. As thou knowest not what [is] the way of the spirit, [nor] how the bones [do grow] in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all. (Eccl. 11:5)
  4. The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? (John 7:21)
  5. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, [even] by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. (2 Cor. 1:19)

It is jarring to my ears when “which” refers to a human person. How does it impact you?

Does anyone happen to know why “which” was sometimes used in the KJV to refer to a human person? Does anyone know if “which” was acceptable at some stage of the English language for referring to a human person?

24 thoughts on “Who or which?

  1. Peter Kirk says:

    So in Genesis 14:20 and Psalm 121:2 is “God” and “the LORD” now human? If that is what you are trying to say it has some interesting Trinitarian implications. But perhaps you meant to say that in current English “who”, not “which”, is used to refer to intelligent beings. I’m sure “who” is generally used for God, angels etc, and in fiction for intelligent aliens, anthropomorphised animals etc.

    But “which” can be used of humans etc as an adjective or when followed by “of”, e.g. “I don’t know which person I prefer” or “Which of these people do you prefer?”

  2. Chaka says:

    I would think the KJV translators’ variation between “who” and “which” in reference to persons is evidence that “which” was acceptable for persons in their time. There isn’t a consistent correlation to an underlying form: Gen 14:20 has ‘asher, but so does Eccl 11:5. Psalm 121:2 doesn’t have ‘asher (the “which” translates a participle); but Judg 8:34 has a participle behind “who”.

  3. Wayne Leman says:

    So in Genesis 14:20 and Psalm 121:2 is “God” and “the LORD” now human?

    My error, and my fault for working on the post past my bedtime last night. I have corrected “human” to “person”, which isn’t totally adequate either, but it’s better than “human.”

  4. Peter Kirk says:

    David, I was actually told off by an editor not long ago for using “which” who wanted to change it to “that”. He said that “which” was not in general use as a relative. I managed to persuade him that in this particular case “which” was better. But I would agree with him that in general, except in very formal English, “which” is on the way out and is rapidly being replaced by “that”.

  5. Michael Nicholls says:

    ‘Which’ has some discourse features today that I don’t think were there in the past. It has started to be used like a conjunction in some contexts, such as:

    “I heard Rob’s in town, which, if he’s going to the party tonight, I’m not.”

    It’s kind of used in place of “concerning which”.

    My guess as to why, is that ‘which’ is the preferred relative pronoun after a pause, so the speaker throws in the ‘which’ after a pause, but doesn’t continue with a good, clean relative clause.

    There’s a restrictive difference between which and that in some contexts (sometimes shown by a pause):

    “He picked up the books which had fallen from the table.”
    “He picked up the books that had fallen from the table.”

    You could argue that in the first sentence, all the books on the table had fallen off, and he then picked them up. In the second sentence, some books fell off, and some didn’t, but he picked up the ones which/that did.

    But it’s very hard to argue that people actually pay attention to details like this and actually use language like this. It’s the kind of thing grammarians like to try to enforce and linguists put aside as merely interesting, although I’m guilty of still trying to convince people to put ‘not’ in the right place:

    “Everyone can’t win.”
    “Not everyone can win.”

    People who often say the first sentence usually mean the second.

    Anyway, back to who/which. As Peter was saying, you can use ‘which’ to refer to intelligent beings in today’s English when distinguishing two or more things. But not as a relative pronoun. I guess you could call it a distinguishing pronoun. Swahili has a whole set of these for distinguishing people/things separate from its set of relative pronouns.

    I’m with Wayne in that I don’t know why the KJV translators sometimes used ‘which’ to refer to intelligent beings. It’s definitely not acceptable in today’s standard English, and I can’t even find information that discusses using ‘which’ in this way. Everything simply says use ‘that/who’ for intelligent beings, and ‘which’ for things/animals (unless following the restrictive/unrestrictive rule, then ‘that’ can be used for animals/things too).

    Is anyone willing to argue that the KJV’s usage of which/who should be kept? I’d be interested to hear arguments on that.

  6. Tim H. says:

    I’m sorry…in my search for the Truth about the Word of God….I found your web-site….I am saddened….instead of promoting the Absolute Truth of God’s Holy Writ..and Glorifying His Name and His Holy Word…..I find this website who seems to think they are smarter than God when it comes to “Improving” upon what God said by the many translations…Most of which differ in truth and meaning….they all don’t say the same thing…since you’re smarter than God…you tell me…which Version IS the real deal…
    If you disallow my post and prevent this from becoming public then you are not really open minded and available for discussion. This would be wrong.

  7. Peter Kirk says:

    Tim, the only “real deal” is the biblical text in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. All translations are imperfect, and they differ from one another, because all of them depend on imperfect human translators, and because in many places there is room for genuine differences of opinion about how best to translate the text. It is these genuine differences of opinion which we discuss on this site. If you don’t like imperfect translations, learn Hebrew and Greek.

  8. Tim H says:

    So, basically, what you’re trying to say is that you’re trusting God, who created the Universe, to save your soul from Hell….but you dont trust Him to keep His Word PURE? He Promised He would keep His Word PURE through out ALL generations…so you’re saying that you don’t believe God was able to give us a Perfect translation?…
    When Moses Spoke to Pharaoh He was more than likely speaking Egyptian…Pharaoh would not lower Himself to Speak in the Language of a People Group he consider scum of the earth…But when Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, he wrote it in Hebrew…a translation….was it not an inspired translation? Moses wasn’t Perfect..but He was a Holy Man…Who walked with God and conversed with God daily…When Joseph was in Egypt and became second to Potiphor, he spoke Egyptian, but when he wrote it in the bible he wrote in Hebrew…is this not an Inspired translation….from egyption to Hebrew?….When God gave us His Word in the English Language..you are right, he didn’t use perfect men…he used HOLY MEN….David wasn’t perfect…but no one can argue that he was Holy..God even said a Man after His Own Heart…
    When Jesus read the Prophecy from Isaiah in the Temple…was He reading from the ORIGINAL or from a Perfect copy….
    When Phillip came across the Ethiopian who was trying to read from Isaiah….in Acts….are you telling me that someone had given him the Original autographs or were they not a perfect copy….
    For anyone to make the claim that God didn’t preserve His PURE Word in every language under heaven is to say that God isn’t able to keep His Promises…thereby making His Word only partially true….
    Sir, The Bible says that HOLY…not perfect men, but HOLY men were moved by the Holy Spirit to write Gods Perfect Word…and that the Scriptures are of no private interpretation….are you insinuating that God only kept His Word PURE in a language that very few people can read anymore? I’m sorry but the wisdom of man is foolishness with God…
    He DID keep HIS WORD PURE in not just English but in every language under heaven…He’s not a God who’s going to leave us in the dark as to what parts of His Word we are to trust and what parts we are to disregard or interpret with our own words…the translators of the modern versions are neither Holy nor are they even saved..the NIV has professed Homosexuals and non believers on the translation comittee…God isn’t going to entrust His Word to UN HOLY MEN…
    We dont have the right to try and figure out what God really said…So HE MUST have kept His Promise in a language we can understand…
    We are commanded never to ADD TO….or TAKE FROM His Word….it’s a damnable action….Are you willing to accept as TRUTH to the saving of your eternal soul Words that you’re not sure are accurate…how can you determine what God really meant if you put your trust in unsaved men who says this is what God really meant to say?
    Im sorry this is long…but no one has the right to say that the GOD of the Bible didn’t keep His Promise to Keep His Word PURE…

  9. Tim H says:

    way too many people spend way too much time reading lexicons and glossaries trying figure out what God was really trying to say rather than simply trusting Him to say exactly what we needed to Hear…and read.
    How arrogant it is to think that we are some how smarter than that the one who created us in His Image….
    People say the KJV has caused the division in the church…when in reality there was very little division in the church as a whole before the new modern translations came out and began to cause people to question Gods Word….it’s the same scene in the Garden…Satan caused Eve to doubt God’s Word and what God really said…..”Yea Hath God said???? and Ye shall NOT surely die….”
    and the results was our separation from God…and Sin.
    It’s no different than re-writing the Bible based upon what MAN thinks God really meant..

  10. Peter Kirk says:

    Tim, please withdraw your false and libellous allegations against the NIV translation committee, none of whom are “professed Homosexuals and non believers”. It was KJV whose sponsor, King James himself, is widely reputed to have been homosexual. But when we get past this kind of ad hominem argument we can start a rational discussion over the relative merits of different translations.

  11. Tim H says:

    by her own admission…a Quote from the stylist who worked extensively on the NIV committee, Virginia Mollenkott…

    “This is a very cleverly worded statement and one which we can allow Virginia Mollenkott to answer herself. In a letter to me [Michael J. Penfold] dated Dec. 18th 1996, in reply to my investigation into her true role on the NIV, Mollenkott wrote the following revealing letter:

    “[Virginia Mollenkott writes] ‘I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labour love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed. I do not consider the NIV more gay-friendly than most modern translations, so I do not understand why anybody would want to bash the NIV because a closeted lesbian worked on it. I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept “homosexual” is too anachronistic to be utilised in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me. I no longer have any contact with the NIV-CBT, but I am often amused to remember that I frequently refused my $5 an hour stipend because I heard the project was running out of money. At the time I was naive about how many millions of dollars are made by a successful Bible translation! Please tell Kenneth Barker for me that although there is much controversy about homosexuality among Biblical scholars, to my knowledge nobody denies that the Bible condemns lying about other people. He should be ashamed of his attempt to rewrite history.

  12. Tim H says:

    These are not my opinions….if you can disprove any of this I will be more than happy to retract my earlier comment….but let’s not get off point…
    This discussion is NOT about the lifestyles of translation committees…it’s about how you claim there is no perfect translation and yet God Promised to Keep His Word PURE throughout ALL generations.
    FYI…I Love God absolutely….and these discoveries came from a sincere desire to know His Word…not what men say that God said but what He Himself said…

    FYI…..the name KJV wasn’t adapted to this bible until much later…it was originally called the Authorized Version….
    King James himself had absolutely nothing to do with the translation as to content and or context…He was the King of the Great Britain Empire and as such granted access to unlimited funding for the translation…He, himself, was not a contributing member of the translation committee, therefore he had no say in the matter.
    Do a study on the personal lives and beliefs of the 47 members of the Original Translation Committee and you will find that every man on that committee were devout Christians…Holy men who’s reverance for the unadulterated Pure Word of God stemming all the way back to the 1st century apostles is undeniable…the new versions are all translated from only two or three Greek text and they were written by Westcott and Hort.
    The Catholic Bibles and the Jehovahs Witness Bible are also written from the same text…beginning in around 1881…

    Dr. Marten Woudstra, Sodomite, Homosexual, and Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee…

    “Why could not Dr. Barker have told the truth in the first place? Taking Mollenkott’s words at their face value, the NIV publicity machine has nothing to worry about. Does their anxiety to distance the NIV from homosexual associations reveal something more sinister?

    “In the light of the following, I believe it does, as it has now come to light that THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NIV’S OLD TESTAMENT TRANSLATION COMMITTEE, DR. MARTEN H. WOUDSTRA, WAS A HOMOSEXUAL. This is much more serious than Mollenkott’s involvement. Here we have one of the leading scholars on the NIV CBT who is a homosexual. Obviously this fact compromises the whole project, especially as this fact was well known by his colleagues for many years. However, only now is this fact coming to the notice of the general public through articles like the one you are reading.

    “Dr. Woudstra, who died in the early 1990s, was a long-time friend of Evangelicals Concerned Inc. This organisation was founded in 1976 by New York psychologist, Dr. Ralph Blair, as a nation-wide task force and fellowship for gay and lesbian ‘evangelical Christians’ and their friends. ECI’s address is 311 East 72nd Street, New York, NY 10021. They can be found on the internet at http://www.korpi.com/ECWE/

    “It was during a series of research phone calls to Dr. Blair that I first confirmed the fact of Dr. Woudstra’s homosexuality. Blair and Dr. Woudstra were friends. Dr. Woudstra had been on the mailing list of Evangelicals Concerned from its inception, and although he had no formal ties with ECI, on one of his many trips to New York he called in and had tea with Dr. Blair. Dr Blair told me that Dr. Woudstra shared the viewpoint of ECI that lifelong ‘loving monogamous relationships’ between gay men or women were acceptable to God. He believed that there was nothing in the Old Testament (his special area of technical expertise) that corresponded to ‘homosexual orientation’. The ‘sodomy’ of the OT simply involved temple rites and gang rape (Gen 19). Notice the similarity between this view and that of Virginia Mollenkott. Dr. Blair clearly stated to me on the phone on 23rd September 1997 that Dr. Woudstra, a lifelong bachelor, was a homosexual. He intimated that other members of the NIV translation committee were also quietly supportive of ECI, but he was not able to tell me who they were (for obvious reasons). He later called them ‘bigger’ names than Dr. Woudstra.

  13. Peter Kirk says:

    Virginia Mollenkott was never a member of “the translation comittee” for NIV. She makes this very clear in her own words which you quoted:

    Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. … I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept “homosexual” is too anachronistic to be utilised in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me.

    See also this page, which makes it very clear that Virginia Mollenkott was never one of the 15 members of The NIV Committee on Bible Translation (CBT). There is a big difference between being a consultant and being a committee member.

  14. Tim H says:

    instead of getting upset because of what I’ve learned…why do you stop defending a particular version just because it’s the one you happen to like…
    After I gave my entire heart and soul to Jesus…I read the NASB for yrs..and God used that version to transform my life by His Word…so I’m not saying God doen’t use these versions…He can and He does…
    But after I began to question and search out the truth to the Origin of the English Bible..because I needed to know where they came from and why…I discovered some shocking truths about how the Word of God is under attack by Satan to destroy Gods Word…He can’t…but He’s trying and He’s doing it so subtly that few see it….and those of us who do see are under attack by those who are yet blinded to the truth…It’s Not me…if I thought it didn’t matter I wouldn’t give it a seconds thought but it does matter…and we are to defend the Pure Word of God…not be tolerant to lasciviousness and those who would pervert the Word of God…who make merchandise out of men….These new versions were created for profit…bottom line is money motivated.
    It’s out of Love. Not Hatred….I love God’s Word and I am called to speak the truth….not defend a translation of the Bible just because I wan

  15. Peter Kirk says:

    As for Dr. Marten Woudstra, it may well be that he was tempted in homosexual ways, and like me took a less strident anti-homosexual position than you do, Tim. That is not proof that he was an active homosexual. Anyway, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone” (John 8:7 KJV).

    I could cast some stones or at least some damaging aspersions at the the actual KJV translators, such as the very ambiguous figure of Lancelot Andrewes. But as I am not without sin, I will simply let you read about these men.

    But really the character of the translators is not what is important. What is important is the quality of the translations. KJV was a very good translation in its time, though not perfect, but it is not in current English and not well understood by most people today. That is the basic reason why modern translations are needed.

    God has kept his word pure, but in the original languages, not in any translation.

  16. Peter Kirk says:

    Tim, are you accusing me of defending a particular version? I am not! I don’t much like NIV, although I used it for many years. But why are you defending KJV against my suggestions that it is not perfect? Satan has always been attacking God’s word, and he found ways to do so in the years leading up to 1611 as well as in the 20th century.

  17. Tim H says:

    I never said she was a “translator” I said she was a “stylist”…it doesn’t matter..she was still a Lesbian…who worked on the NIV the Whole time it was being created.

    You are OFF POINT….forget this subject…

    You have yet to mention anything else about the main topic….Did HE…(God) Keep His Promise to Keep His Word Pure for ALL generations or did He Not..and if Not, then are you smart enough to determine which are God’s words and which are Not..
    Im not discussing the lifestyles of NIV participants…on any level…I’ve already shown you that Mollenkott was a part of the NIV and she was Lesbian…
    You show me conclusively that the AV isn’t accurate…then show me which one IS accurate….or it’s the same as saying God can’t Keep His Word PURE…dont you think He knew that English was to become to world dominate language just before the return of Christ…..and that He created a Perfect Bible to guild those who are saved through the things we are going to have to endure for HIS NAMES SAKE?
    What do you want…a Bible you have to Question the validity of or a watered down version that causes men to go to lexicons and glossaries to try and find what GOD really said…?

    Stop the maddness…
    I will no longer debate the ability of God Almighty to Keep His Word…
    I appologize if I offended you…it was never my intent…
    But I will NEVER appologize for speaking the truth as God has revealed it in His Word..His PURE Word…
    Have a Blessed day… and I pray you will study this in your own time…with an open heart and mind…it’s the only way you will ever know for sure…
    How can you read a version of the Bible never really knowing if what you are reading is really true.
    I cant trust myself that much…Im not smart enough to figure that out….so I have to trust God’s WORD….but if they dont say the same thing…ya gotta ask…WHY…

  18. Tim H says:

    You said…
    God DID Keep His Word PURE, but only in the Original languages…not i the translations…..
    So, if i understand what you are saying…it’s that you don’t believe God cares enough about His Original Words to preserve them?….Isn’t He the God who changes NOT…isn’t He The GOD who is the same yesterda, today and forever…?
    So are you saying that somehow God over the yrs has put a little less emphasis on His WORD and didn’t feel that it was important enough to preserve it for ALL Generations…Come on, please, The original Autographs have long since disappeared into the sands of time….no one, no one has access to the Original Autographs….
    People always say the Originals….so let me ask you…which Originals are you referring to…the Byzantine Text the AV used or the Alexandrian Text….which was created by Origen, and Jerome and a few others…the same text the Roman Catholics use….and the Jehovah’s Witness use…

    You use that scripture as a weapon….bad idea…as we are NOT called to be silent and passive and tolerant of sin in any form…
    If you see a brother committing sin and you stand by doing nothing you are as guilty as he is…
    I’m not condemning these people or judging them in the least…
    Would it be throwing the first stone if you called a pathelogical liar, a liar?…no….because he IS a Liar…would you be throwing the first stone to say that Islam is a false religion?…no because it IS False….
    I’m not their judge…there is only ONE who is perfect…and it sure aint me…but the Bible says we are to Mark them…to make public, which cause division among us….and to warn others about them….If we dont do that and are passive then we are condoning their sin…by proxy….

  19. Tim H says:

    subject change…
    Im pretty sure the word “which” in this case is a transitional word meaning..”this is what HE did”…and not referring to which as a personal pronoun…Im no english major but the KJV is the easiest to read and the easiest to understand…it’s the most beautiful and was written with about a 5-6 grade level of understanding……I dont understand why people seem to feel the need to improve upon something that has withstood the test of time for so long and with such remarkable results…
    Since these new versions came about…this world has seen two world wars…prayer taken out of the schools, abortion legalized…and a long list of woes…. I’m not saying the new versions did this…it’s just an observation…it’s what happens when we think we can water down Gods Holy Writ and still stay morally sound. When we asked GOD to leave us alone…he’s such a gentleman, that He HAS…and this is the results..

  20. Peter Kirk says:

    Tim, I regret starting this discussion with you, because it is clear that you are not prepared to take part in a rational discussion of the kind that is welcome on this blog. You have repeatedly breached the Posting Guidelines at the top of the page, especially points (2) and (5). Please, let’s stop this and stick to the guidelines.

    The first part of your latest comment is acceptable. But I do wonder if you really understand KJV, if you think there is a difference of meaning between “who” and “which” in the verses quoted. If there is a meaning difference, that is the proof you were asking me for that KJV is an imperfect translation, for there is no consistent or meaningful difference in the original Hebrew or Greek of the verses Wayne cited.

  21. Tim H says:

    Once again…I’m asking you…
    Question 1
    Which “Originals” are you referring to? The Byzantine Text or the Alexandrian Text…because they both claim superiority over the other. They both can’t be right.
    Question 2
    Since the True Autographs vanished with time….and all that remain are copy’s of copy’s of copy’s…etc…and it’s a fact that not all of the copy’s line up with each other..then, “Who has the authority to determine which copy’s are accurate.?”
    It is widely believed that just because the copy’s are older, that they are somehow better….this does in no way prove anything…
    It’s the copy’s that have the greatest number of text that line up…those would seem to be more accurate….by sheer volume of having the majority of same text.
    May I ask another question….
    Can you quote me any scripture from any translation that talks of or mentions anything GOOD ever coming from Egypt…which is the Biblical referrence for everything that is against God’s Word.
    The Alexandrian Text..which is what most new versions are written from were found buried in the sands of Egypt. A metaphor for this Worlds system and everything ungodly…
    I hope you dont take these questions the wrong way…they are meant with good intentions
    No sarcasm and no insults intended…
    But I still hold firm that when a person claims that God didn’t keep His Word Pure in every language under heaven then it seems to me that they can’t be sure that when they read the Bible that they know for sure it’s what God really said said…
    So they have to go to lexicons and glossary’s and concordances to try and figure out what God meant.
    I serve a bigger God than that…and He HAS Preserved His Word Perfectly….
    Not one single thign we’ve discussed has anything whatsoever to do with yours or my Salvation…it’s not a Salvation issue…agreed?

  22. Peter Kirk says:

    Tim, I am not going to answer any more questions which breach the discussion guidelines – with one exception. Read Matthew 2:14. Was Jesus not a “GOOD … coming from Egypt”?

    Also please get your facts right. The main witnesses for the Alexandrian text, the great codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, were never buried in the sand anywhere, but have been kept safely by Christians ever since they were written in the 4th and 5th centuries.

    I agree with you that these are not salvation issues.

  23. Roger Pearse says:

    The comments by both Tim H and Peter Kirk seem to me useful in clarifying the role of Virginia Mollenkott, which I have just discovered and which seems very troubling. Thank you both. But it seems that no-one at the time really knew, and that her role was very minor.

    In any project of any size, of course, there will always be *someone* who turns out to be doing something dodgy.

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