Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.

com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

Redeeming God
Rescuing Scripture, Theology, & Church from the Shackles of Religion

Join Us! Scripture Theology My Books About You Can Help Member’s Area Courses

Calvinism and the NIV

By Jeremy Myers
48 Comments

Let me take a brief pause in our ongoing series on Calvinism to discuss my choice of Bible translations.

I primarily use the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible. It combines the accuracy of the New American Standard (NAS) and the
readability of the New International Version (NIV) with the poetry and dignity of the King James Version (KJV).

But more importantly for my purposes, the NKJV translation has not suffered from the blatant Calvinistic interpretive bias which is found in
various other Bible translations.

I am convinced that one reason for the rise of popular-level Calvinism in the United States over the past 30 years is because of
the popularity of the NIV.

The NIV (as well as the ESV, the English Standard Version) is extremely Calvinistic.

People often think that Bible translators are theologically neutral. They are not.

The act of Bible translation is theological interpretation. That is, when a scholar translates biblical Hebrew and Greek into English, their
translation will often reflect their theological bent.

So it is not surprising that the NIV, whose committee of translators heavily consisted of Calvinistic scholars, has a decidedly Calvinistic slant. I
sometimes find that a verse in the NIV which seems to irrefutably support a Calvinistic position becomes much less supportive when other
translations are consulted. This is especially true in 1 John.

I sometimes wish that Christians who use the NIV for their Bible study would simply rip 1 John out of their Bibles. This is not because I object
to what John wrote—far from it! I love it!—but because the NIV translation of 1 John is so shockingly bad.

Has anybody else noticed this as they have used the NIV and ESV for preaching, teaching, or Bible Study? What verses or
passages have revealed the greatest Calvinistic bias?

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.
Share this post with
others!

God is Uncategorized
Bible & Theology Topics: 1 John, Bible Study, bible translation, Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, NIV, Theology of Salvation

Advertisement

1 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.
Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

Comments

K.W. Leslie says

August 18, 2014 at 7:05 am

Titus 2.11. The NLT has, accurately, “For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people.” But since Calvinists
believe in limited atonement, that’s not gonna work, so the NIV has, “For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all
people.”

Reply

K.W. Leslie says

August 18, 2014 at 7:10 am

Forgot to include the ESV’s “bringing salvation for all people.” ‘Cause apparently dative Greek nouns can now be translated this
way without a pronoun.

Reply

Craig Schmidt says

August 18, 2014 at 8:59 am

K. W. – I am not following how this translation is strictly Calvinistic. It appears to me that the word “offered” would specifically
pertain to an Arminian view of salvation (God offers salvation to all but will not force His will upon anyone, hence He “offers”
salvation and some choose Him and others don’t). I also personally believe that both Calvinists and Arminians limit atonement,
one by limiting it to the elect (Calvinists) and the other by limiting it to only those who will choose to believe (Arminians). I would
rather trust Jesus’ words in John 12:32: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

Reply

K.W. Leslie says

August 18, 2014 at 11:17 am

Arminians have no problem with God “forcing his will” upon humans. After all, he does decide when each of us is gonna die.
Among other things. God’s still sovereign. He just opts out of an absolute sovereignty, ’cause free will.

But we have a big problem with the limited-atonement idea. Properly defined, it’s God-limited atonement. It’s not human-
limited. Even if it were, Jesus paid my penalty: Rejecting that he’s done so, doesn’t mean he still hasn’t done so. It’s like being
in lockup, finding someone paid my bail, and opting to stay in lockup anyway. The bail wasn’t unpaid. I’m still atoned for. I
just don’t avail myself of it, because my heart is hard.

As far as God’s concerned, atonement is for all. Jesus died for all. God doesn’t limit atonement. Any interpretation which takes
universal atonement, and turns it into any form of limited atonement, would be Calvinist.

If you know of any Arminians who do so, have ’em turn in their Arminian cards.

Reply

2 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.
Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

Gerrie Malan says

August 23, 2014 at 10:27 pm

I do not believe God decides when each of us is going to die. That would, for example, mean He gives a couple a baby after
they have been childless for many years, just to see the baby die a month old, etc., etc. Or He decided who will smoke
themselves to lung cancer.

Unless you would say He decided the time, not the method. Then we’re on the topic of free will (e.g. the smoker or the
reckless driver, etc.). Someone with a healthy lifestyle has a better chance for long life than one that does not have such.

Reply

K.W. Leslie says

August 24, 2014 at 7:25 am

Job felt otherwise. (14.1-6)

But what I mean is something closer to this. Say I’m dying, and I call for help, and a bystanding doctor chooses to do
nothing. He could’ve saved my life, but didn’t. His will prevailed over mine.

Or say he shot me. Same deal.

I agree God certainly doesn’t cause every death. But his decision to not get in the way does mean every death is up to
him. If he wanted to stop that death, he would. He doesn’t. He has better in mind.

Rodney Kent says

September 23, 2015 at 2:02 pm

You are correct, God does not the cause of death; he is the giver of life. Death was brought into the world by Adam’s
sin. This act of Adam, the act of unrighteousness produced the opposite of righteousness, thus bringing death and
chaos into God’s perfect creation.

Death is the enemy of God and the death is the last enemy to be destroyed by God. Death is brought on to us by the
worlds chaotic situation, including all the diseases. Accidents, murders, diseases, tornadoes, etal, are tools used by evil
to bring death to the earths inhabitants.

A person may prolong his life by eating right, good exercise, good habits, moral attributes that strengthen the mind,
abstaining from harmful habits, resisting desires to go to clubs, parties, socials, etc, that includes mischief making
mankind, etal. A person can lengthen their life by honoring their parents.

However, there are two sides to the coin. Satan may have planned to cause a certain individual to die due to one of the
reasons above, but God is not ready for that person to die so he can intervene and prolong his life. A Christian may be
shaming the Holy Ghost indwelling him and refuses to repent of his ways. God will not always strive with man and
may turn him over to Satan (World) to take his body by the destroyer, but to the saving of the soul.

Yes, God will allow the destroyer (agent of Satan) to take lives, but Satan is also on a leash so that he cannot exceed
God’s sovereign will. Satan is jealous that God made man and told the angels they would have to serve man. Satan is
out to kill all of mankind, especially the Jews and Christians. Since God makes the sun to shine on the good and the
bad, the rain to fall on the good and the bad, he is just and fair and lets the consequence of Adam’s curse on mankind
to take its natural course. God is still in control of the overall results, but allows the individual results to take its
course. Make no mistake about this, most of the results that happen to us are caused by our own decisions.

One last item: God does not have an individual plan for each person born into this world. We are a result of our
decisions, but those who place their lives in the will of God are following God’s plan for all and their lives will be more
blessed than those outside the will of God.

God made only one man and that was Adam. He was made perfect and Eve was taken out of him and given back to
Adam. God never makes anything that is not perfect in righteousness. God is righteous, and it is impossible for
unrighteousness to come from righteousness. God instituted the plan for the earth to be populated through Adam and
Eve, but God does not make all other men who are born into this world. God only makes perfection, and all of
mankind born outside of Eden are imperfect and are the result of sinful man.

No person can ever rightly state that God made him the way he is. A person’s makeup comes from 13 chromosomes
from their father and 13 chromosomes from their mother. Each person born has a unique identify with certain
inherent characteristics from their parents. However, if a person uses his God given free will, he can accept the grace

3 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.
Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

of God and the Holy Ghost will place within him a new heart that can easily adapt to the will of God.

Man is responsible for his actions and his final destination after this life. God, through Adam, gave man the
knowledge of good and evil and the free will to either accept the good (God/righteousness) or (Evil/unrighteousness).
This is the major choice of all of mankind and determines his final destination.

Tony Vance says

August 18, 2014 at 9:06 am

I’m, what I call, a KJV mostliest…lol…but I do love the NLT for readability and devotional purposes. I am not against the use of any
translation. I remember what Eugene Peterson (The Message) said about this subject. He said all translations serve a purpose even the
bad ones.

Interestingly, John MacArthur (a Calvinist champion) said the NIV is one of the worse translations.

Reply

Kyle Knapp says

August 18, 2014 at 9:31 am

Interesting. Can you point to one or two specific passages in 1Jn that reflect Calvnistic bias in the NIV.

I’m not doubting what you say, I just hadn’t noticed it before. Generally I avoid telling anyone “don’t use this or that translation” – ALL
have flaws. I recommend people remember that all English versions are subject to translators’ bias, so keep their minds open and
compare versions.

Reply

Jeremy Myers says

August 20, 2014 at 12:57 pm

Kyle,
1 John 3:6 is one example.

The NIV mistranslates meno (remain/abide) as “live” and then adds the words “keeps on” and “continues” to the verse. In essence,
the NIV translation of this verse is saying that if you continue to sin, you do not have life in Him. This is a favorite proof text for the
P in TULIP: Perseverance of the Saints.

But if we translate it literally, 1 John 3:6 is saying that when we are “abiding” in Him we do not sin. That is, sin does not come from
a state of abiding in Christ.

An almost identical problem is in 1 John 3:9.

Then there is 1 John 3:12. As an explanation for why Cain murdered Abel, the NIV says that Cain “belonged to” the evil one. But
really, the Greek only says that Cain “was of” the evil one, which leaves open the question as to why Cain acted as he did. For
example, another option could simple be that Can “was acting according to” the evil one.

Again, this verse is sometimes used to defend the idea that anyone who commits murder proves that he/she does not have eternal
life, but “belongs to” the evil one.

This same idea is carried on into 1 John 3:15. Here, the NIV completely omits the word “abiding.” The NIV says “…you know that
no murderer has eternal life in him.” Instead, it should say, “…you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” Again,
the two are very different.

Having eternal life and abiding in eternal life are not the same. The first implies that anyone who murders proves that they do not
have eternal life. This supports Perseverance of the Saints again. Including the word “abiding” however, says that someone who has
eternal life might actually murder someone, but if they do, it is not because they have (or don’t have) eternal life, but simply
because they are not acting according to the eternal life that they have from God.

I could go on and one. These are just a few examples out of chapter 3.

4 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.
Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

Reply

Brian Midmore says

August 18, 2014 at 9:37 am

NT Wright does not like the NIV. His complaint concerns Rom 3.21. But now a righteousness FROM God apart from the law has been
made known’. Paul is alluding to Isa 56.1 which says ‘For my salvation is about to come and my righteousness to be revealed’ For Paul
the gospel was the fulfilment of Isa 56.1. Thus by reference to Isa 56.1 righteousness from God should read God’s righteousness (his
own not what he gives Christians) as it does in the NKJV. Righteousness from God was the way Luther (and later Calvin) read Rom
3.21. This should not be translated into the text.

Reply

Jeremy Myers says

August 20, 2014 at 12:59 pm

I didn’t know this about NT Wright. Since he is a leading Pauline scholar, I am always interested to hear his perspective on Paul.
Thanks!

Reply

Brian Midmore says

August 21, 2014 at 11:09 pm

You must read NT Wright ‘Paul and the faithfulness of God. It is 1700 pages long but it will form the basis for Pauline studies
for a decade. It challenges some of the comfortable assumptions of evangelicalism and Protestantism. An important thesis of
Wright is that Romans is not primarily written to say ‘there is a new way to be saved and its not by good works (i.e seeking to
gain Gods favour) but it is now by faith(alone)’, but rather ‘the people of God are now constituted, not by the works of the law
(i.e being Jewish and fulfilling all that Jews needed to do under the Law) but by faith in a faithful Messiah’. In Rom 3.29 the
little word ‘or’ which is translated out of the NIV (bad people!) is important for his argument. For Wright Rom 3 is arguing
that the people of God are now constituted by faith in the Messiah and if this were not true then the people of God would still
be the only the Jews. i.e those who had the law. This makes sense of ‘Or is he the God of the Jews only’ and it is a pity that the
NIV omits OR. This isn’t deliberately done, I believe, but they have allowed their general reading of Romans to influence their
translation and thereby exclude the possibility of alternative readings.

Reply

Jeremy Myers says

August 24, 2014 at 12:20 pm

This is the 2-volume work, right? I have it, but have been putting off reading it. I really need to dive in.

Reply

Christopher Bowen says

August 18, 2014 at 10:49 am

What? where? Seriously though where in 1 John or should the whole chapter be ripped out? Can you give an example of this
calvinistic bias like Kyle Knapp is asking? Also have you read the book “The Reformers and their Stepchildren” by Leonard Verduin?
This book speaks about the subject of Calvinistic influence in the church today, it is a Great read.

Reply

Dino Costanzo says

August 18, 2014 at 11:52 am

5 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.
Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

I agree that the NIV is one of the worst translations, but here are the interesting things I can add. I was brought to Christ by exclusive
use of the NIV, but this happened from cassette tapes and the Old Testament only. I was definitely a Christian before making it to the
NIV New Testament. A Church of Christ Church I attended for 3 years relied on the NIV as their translation to go to the most and they
were as Armenian as could be. So go figure.

Reply

Jeremy Myers says

August 20, 2014 at 1:00 pm

Yes, I used the NIV for most of my growing up years. For readability, I like it. I just have some misgivings about recommending it
to others.

Reply

Gerrie Malan says

August 23, 2014 at 10:37 pm

John Sheasby, who has been living and ministering in the US for decades now, calls the NIV the Not Inspired Version.
Heh-heh.

While using a considerable variety of Bibles together (e.g. NKJV, Geneva, KJV, Interlinears, Complete Jewish Bible, 1917
Tanakh), my two basic versions are the 1933 Afrikaans translation (my home language) and the Holman Christian Standard
Bible. Not one of them is perfect, but I have found them to give me a good basis to work from.

Reply

Gerrie Malan says

August 23, 2014 at 10:39 pm

With respect to Afrikaans translations, more recent versions have taken the NIV type of direction.

Reply

Justin Steckbauer says

August 18, 2014 at 1:16 pm

The King James version was translated from different manuscripts than all the more modern translations, which are not as accurate.
NKJV is from the same. Not wise to use those.

Reply

Simon says
August 19, 2014 at 12:57 pm

agreed, NKJV suffers from same weaknesses as the KJV.

Reply

Jeremy Myers says

August 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm

I actually am a proponent of the Majority Text, and so believe that the textual family of the KJV and NKJV is stronger than those
translations based on the NA / UBS text…. but that’s just me.

Reply

6 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.
Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

david brainerd says

July 16, 2015 at 8:26 pm

The KJV and NKJV were translated from different manuscripts than all the Calvinist Evangelical translations since 1901, and those
manuscripts the KJV/NKJV used are complete rather than mangled and missing verses, so its very very wise to use the KJV/NKJV.
If, however, you do want to see what the Alexandrian Text says as well (and the footnotes in the NKJV don’t satisfy you on that
point) then use a ASV/NASB since they’re more literal than a paraphrase like the NIV. Quite frankly, these days, why would anyone
use only one translation? Get something like the Complete Evangelical Parallel Bible that has the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NLT in it.

Reply

Ron Boyer says

August 18, 2014 at 3:58 pm

Like John 15:2 – it has “cut off” for “airo” – very bad. Best – “lift up” or “raise up”. Another one Gal. 2:20, it has ” we live by the faith in
the Son”, should be “… of the Son.”

Reply

Kevin Hansen says

August 18, 2014 at 4:33 pm

I am agast and appalled to hear that all translations of the Bible are not strictly scrutinized and agreed upon by all biblical scholars
prior to release. Lol yea as if all scholars could all agree everything else. Too funny. Growing up I went from KJV (just aged myself) to
Living to NIV. For the past many years I have used NKJV as my primary but still cross reference to others.

Reply

Kyle Knapp says

August 18, 2014 at 10:10 pm

Thanks Ron, but that doesn’t point a finger at the NIV, nearly every translation says either “cut off” or “takes away” in John 15:2 (I can’t
find any that say “raise up”)

Jeremy specifically referred to 1Jn – I was hoping for some examples of Calvinist bias there.

Reply

David Housholder says

August 19, 2014 at 3:53 am

Such sweeping condemnations of months of careful work by scholars who love the Bible is cruel. And what about 1 John? That critique
must be supported.
And, Jeremy, would you please look at topic of commonly-heard ideas that may or may not have biblical basis–one mentioned in these
comments–is that God chooses the time of our death. It’s all fixed. So are we wasting our time wearing seat belts and going to doctors
when sick?

Reply

Jeremy Myers says

August 20, 2014 at 1:07 pm

Yes, I made a broad statement which unfairly condemns the excellent work of many notable scholars.

That was probably wrong of me…. especially since I owe much of Bible knowledge and theological foundation to the NIV. It was the
translation I used for most of my growing up years, and did not switch until a few years into pastoral ministry….

As for the question about the time of our death, I am not certain it is set. I don’t believe in fatalism (not even the divinely ordained
kind), and so always recommend wearing seat belts and going to doctors when sick.

7 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.
Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

Reply

Simon says
August 19, 2014 at 1:04 pm

Interesting post here Jeremy.

I agree with your judgment on the ESV, which is highly biased. They’ve translated out female apostles and leaders because of their
theology and other such things.

However I wouldn’t say the NIV is in the same boat. Its an evangelical translation but not a distinctively conservative, reformed one
like the ESV. Many die hard ESV users will slate the NIV because it’s too ‘liberal’ or some other nonsense.

NKJV on the other hand isn’t a great translation, i believe it still uses the textus receptus like the KJV which is far newer than many of
the manuscripts found since. it suffers from the same weaknesses as the the KJV. It was not recommended to us when I was studying
theology.

I use the NRSV which seems to be widely regarded as one of the best translations for study. Being a literal translation, yet not as
wooden as the NASB, it is very close to the originals. Yet it is also an ecumenical translation which does something to iron out the bias
of other translations such as the ESV and to a lesser extent the NIV.

Reply

Jeremy Myers says

August 20, 2014 at 1:11 pm

I use the NKJV (because I hold the Majority Text position), but as a second choice, I would go with the NRSV as well. I often go
back and forth between the two.

Reply

Mike says
August 19, 2014 at 4:32 pm

Jeremy:

You are becoming predictable, slanting the argument your way in order to get your point across. No Calvinist I know uses the NIV, not
one. All versions may or may not be useful to some people, depending on their age, background, education, etc…

Most Calvinists I know use a variety of tools, mostly LOGOS 5 comes to mind plus other software.

Using such horrible blog posts to continue to tear apart the body of Christ is sinful. While no longer a Calvinist, I resent this weak effort
to cast stones at brothers and sisters.

MK

Reply

Jeremy Myers says

August 20, 2014 at 1:10 pm

No Calvinist you know uses the NIV? Most probably use the ESV, right? Almost the same criticism could be leveled at the ESV. And
as it is a translation that is only …. what? …. 10 years old or so, many notable Calvinists used the NIV up until the ESV came out.

Regardless, that wasn’t the point of my post. I was pointing out that the NIV is somewhat responsible for the widespread
popularity of Calvinism over the past 3 decades. People (not scholars!) who read the NIV were influenced to believe Calvinistic
theology simply by reading and using the NIV. That was my point.

Reply

8 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.
Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

david brainerd says

July 16, 2015 at 8:31 pm

Baptist Calvinists use the NIV, or did until the ESV came out and the new marching orders came down from all the big name
Calvinist pastors, so they burned their NIV and switched to a ESV like a good little slave.

Reply

Kyle Knapp says

August 20, 2014 at 6:58 pm

Thanks. I see what you mean now.

Reply

Dennis Wilson says

August 22, 2014 at 8:12 am

Interesting Jeremy…I like the NASB and have always thought that the NIV was a little thin…but why do Calvinists (who are on the
upswing for whatever reason) like NIV…I thought this was the choice for libs….

Reply

Jeremy Myers says

August 24, 2014 at 12:24 pm

I am not really saying they “like” it. Many Calvinists actually use the ESV (which is also a Calvinistic-leaning translation). What I
am saying is that the popularity of the NIV has led to an uprise in people agreeing with Calvinistic teaching when they hear it.

Reply

david brainerd says

August 24, 2014 at 7:37 pm

Baptist Calvinists like the NIV. Non-baptist Calvinists like the ESV.

Reply

david brainerd says

July 16, 2015 at 8:29 pm

Yes, I agree with myself there a year later. That’s it exactly. Amazing insight you had last year on this me!

Reply

david brainerd says

August 24, 2014 at 7:36 pm

Psalm 51:5 is Calvinist biased in almost every translation but the KJV, NKJV, NASB. From “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin
did my mother conceive me.” To “Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” The idiotic theory of original sin as in “I was born a sinner, ha, ha, ha, and I can’t do no
better so I’ll just wallow in it like a moron” is the beginning of Calvinism. If you don’t identify as a Calvinist and you believe in it, you’re
a liar who says you aren’t a Calvinist but who clearly is one.

Reply

9 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.
Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

Emilio Gomez says

September 4, 2014 at 2:00 pm

The Trinatarian influence on both the NIV and KJV is far worse than anything Calvinism has done.

Reply

david brainerd says

July 16, 2015 at 8:34 pm

Are the two really that distinct? They kind of tend to go together. Calvinism is tradition over scripture, and one of the biggest
(Catholic) traditions that Protestants still peddle today is the Trinity. The second is eternal conscious torment rather than
conditional immortality (aka anihilationism), and Jesus said “fear him who can DESTROY both body and soul in hell” and Psalm
37:20 “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall
they consume away.” How can you get around that???

Reply

Emilio says
July 17, 2015 at 4:20 am

David-I agree with you 100% on both points you mention (Trinity, anihilationism) .Rarely do I find someone like that .
Checkout the REV. Revised English Version ,which agrees on both points and has an appendix with commentary on both
subjects. It actually has commentary on nearly all the verses that deal with those 2 subjects.

Reply

Deborah says
May 16, 2016 at 4:15 pm

Hi Jeremy, I really appreciate you bringing up this issue. John Stek was my great uncle, my grandma’s brother. My grandma is the
strictest Calvinist I know, and I have no doubt that Uncle John was the same way. (I went to Calvin College and talked with him once
after a concert, and he was working on an updated translation at that time.) It occurred to me a few years ago that since John was the
chairman of the translation committee, the NIV was bound to have a Calvinistic bias. I can’t even read the NIV anymore now, because
of verses like Ephesians 2:8, which make it sound like faith is the gift of God (a Calvinist idea), when, as you point out, the whole
salvation package — really, the work of the cross for us — is the gift of God. So thanks for bringing this up, it is very important to
recognize!

Reply

Jeremy Myers says

May 16, 2016 at 6:26 pm

Wow! Well done on breaking the family tradition and finding your own way. You are right about Ephesians 2:8. I have many
problems with the entire book of 1 John in the NIV.

Reply

Deborah says
May 16, 2016 at 6:34 pm

I will check it out. I use biblehub.com to compare translations.

Reply

Taylor says
May 23, 2016 at 10:26 pm

10 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.
Calvinism and the NIV https://redeeminggod.com/calvinism-and-the-niv/

I actually arrive at Calvinistic theology no matter which translation I read, even more so when I read the Greek and Hebrew.

Reply

Cheri says
June 10, 2016 at 4:03 pm

Me too

Reply

Leave a Comment or Question

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Post Comment

© 2017 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework

11 de 11 10/5/17 5:17 p. m.