What do you think?
Rate this book
Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach
From the KJV to the NIV, NLT, ESV, and beyond, English Bible translations have never been as plentiful as they are today. This proliferation has also brought confusion regarding translation differences and reliability. This book brings clarity to the issues and makes a strong case for an essentially literal approach. Taking into account the latest developments in Bible translation, Leland Ryken expertly clarifies the issues that underlie modern Bible translation by defining the terms that govern this discipline and offering a helpful Q&A. He then contrasts the two main translation traditions-essentially literal and dynamic equivalence-and concludes with sound reasons for choosing the former, with suggestions for using such a translation in the church. This book will appeal to thoughtful readers who have questions about Bible translation; individuals, churches, and ministries in the process of choosing a translation; and college and seminary students and faculty.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
15 people are currently reading
101 people want to read
About the author
Leland Ryken
128 books139 followersDr. Ryken has served on the faculty of Wheaton College since 1968. He has published over thirty books and more than one hundred articles and essays, devoting much of his scholarship to Bible translations and the study of the Bible as literature. He served as Literary Chairman for the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible and in 2003 received the distinguished Gutenberg Award for his contributions to education, writing, and the understanding of the Bible.
He is the father of Philip Graham Ryken
He is the father of Philip Graham Ryken
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
November 29, 2014
This is a very interesting book which contrasts two methods of translating the Bible into English. One is the "Essentially literal translation philosophy" which Ryken supports. This works on the principle that translation should be transparent to the text--the translator should attempt to reproduce "the form or language of the original text, not just its meaning." This philosophy was the dominant approach until the mid twentieth century.
Opposed to this is the approach termed "Dynamic Equivalence" which holds that "whenever something in the native-language text is foreign or unclear to a contemporary reader, the original text should be translated in terms of a dynamic equivalent." Thus, the translator can provide a term which has a functional similarity to that in the original text. Therefore, the translation should be "transparent to the reader". An example of an essentially literal translation is this from the English Standard Version"
"Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head". (Ecclesiastes 9:8}
The New Living Translation--which uses dynamic equivalence--translates the same passage thus:
"Wear fine clothes, with a splash of cologne."
The book explores the effects of dynamic equivalence in terms of its effects on the literary, theological, and pastoral consequences.
Ryken is clearly writing this as a committed Christian as well as a scholar but I feel that any one who wishes to study the Bible would find this book both interesting and disturbing regardless of their actual belief system. After all the Bible is a collection of books and many--perhaps all--of these have great historical value apart from their religious significance. It would seem to me that one does not wish an English translation which dilutes or even changes the actual material therein.
Of course, if the reader regards the Bible as a rule of faith then there is an additional reason to take Ryken very seriously indeed.
Opposed to this is the approach termed "Dynamic Equivalence" which holds that "whenever something in the native-language text is foreign or unclear to a contemporary reader, the original text should be translated in terms of a dynamic equivalent." Thus, the translator can provide a term which has a functional similarity to that in the original text. Therefore, the translation should be "transparent to the reader". An example of an essentially literal translation is this from the English Standard Version"
"Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head". (Ecclesiastes 9:8}
The New Living Translation--which uses dynamic equivalence--translates the same passage thus:
"Wear fine clothes, with a splash of cologne."
The book explores the effects of dynamic equivalence in terms of its effects on the literary, theological, and pastoral consequences.
Ryken is clearly writing this as a committed Christian as well as a scholar but I feel that any one who wishes to study the Bible would find this book both interesting and disturbing regardless of their actual belief system. After all the Bible is a collection of books and many--perhaps all--of these have great historical value apart from their religious significance. It would seem to me that one does not wish an English translation which dilutes or even changes the actual material therein.
Of course, if the reader regards the Bible as a rule of faith then there is an additional reason to take Ryken very seriously indeed.
January 27, 2011
Do you know how you ended up with the Bible you use? Do you know the principles that guided the translators that determined how the original words written by the biblical authors would be presented? Does it matter to whether you have the English words that correspond to the actual words used in the original, or are you content with the translators’ best presentation of the surmised meaning of the text? Are you comfortable with the removal of metaphors, ambiguity, and some poetic imagery from the text in an effort to “modernize” the text, or do you want to see exactly what the biblical writers actually wrote?
If you’ve never given any thought to these types of questions, you should. They are important. If you don’t know the answers, but would like to, Leland Ryken’s Understanding English Bible Translation is a good place to start. Ryken makes the attempt throughout the book to make the case that an essentially-literal translation (the ESV, for example) is the best translation because of its adherence to providing readers with the actual corresponding English text to what the original said. While doing this, Ryken points out what he considers major flaws in dynamic equivalent translations (paraphrases like The Message, and The New Living Translation). He demonstrates how these types of translations hinder modern audiences from seeing the fullness of the original texts and remove confidence that what readers have is an accurate representation of the original.
I fall gladly into the essentially-literal camp. I utilize an ESV for most of my biblical reading and studying. I also occasionally use an NLT for devotional reading or as a commentary. Whatever your current preference, however, this book would be useful. While Ryken clearly disapproves of dynamic equivalent Bibles, the principles he sets forth are a great introduction to help readers understand the differences and what’s at stake. Most people simply don’t know. Whatever translation you use, you should at least know what you have (and don’t have) in front of you.
I think Ryken makes a strong case for essentially literal translations. I can see some people arguing with some of his points (for example, what does “essentially-literal” really mean?), and I think there are many great uses for dynamic equivalent texts, but overall, I think many would be convinced of the advantages of a translation like the ESV. I’ve been curious about the real differences in the translations for a while, and I thoroughly enjoyed this book as a great introduction to the issues involved. I knew paraphrase translations just didn’t sound right to me, but now I understand the principles that were underlying my apprehensions.
If you’ve never given any thought to these types of questions, you should. They are important. If you don’t know the answers, but would like to, Leland Ryken’s Understanding English Bible Translation is a good place to start. Ryken makes the attempt throughout the book to make the case that an essentially-literal translation (the ESV, for example) is the best translation because of its adherence to providing readers with the actual corresponding English text to what the original said. While doing this, Ryken points out what he considers major flaws in dynamic equivalent translations (paraphrases like The Message, and The New Living Translation). He demonstrates how these types of translations hinder modern audiences from seeing the fullness of the original texts and remove confidence that what readers have is an accurate representation of the original.
I fall gladly into the essentially-literal camp. I utilize an ESV for most of my biblical reading and studying. I also occasionally use an NLT for devotional reading or as a commentary. Whatever your current preference, however, this book would be useful. While Ryken clearly disapproves of dynamic equivalent Bibles, the principles he sets forth are a great introduction to help readers understand the differences and what’s at stake. Most people simply don’t know. Whatever translation you use, you should at least know what you have (and don’t have) in front of you.
I think Ryken makes a strong case for essentially literal translations. I can see some people arguing with some of his points (for example, what does “essentially-literal” really mean?), and I think there are many great uses for dynamic equivalent texts, but overall, I think many would be convinced of the advantages of a translation like the ESV. I’ve been curious about the real differences in the translations for a while, and I thoroughly enjoyed this book as a great introduction to the issues involved. I knew paraphrase translations just didn’t sound right to me, but now I understand the principles that were underlying my apprehensions.
March 22, 2013
It's always great to read a non-fiction book by someone who believes in high literary standards, it makes the whole reading process much more enjoyable. This was overall very helpful in thinking through English translation, he is clear that he doesn't speak to translations in languages that don't have one (Wycliffe etc), but I thought some of his points might be helpful correctives to an overly dynamic mindset. In the end, translation questions aside, this book has been very helpful in making me think about thinking about the words the Bible uses, and unpacking them and digesting them mulling on the pictures the Bible paints for us and drawing out multiple implications from them.
Three take-aways that stood out:
- the statement "what was the author trying to say" implies that he couldn't express himself, shows lack of respect for author, even if implicitly
- concrete language is more powerful, vivid, real and the Bible is full of it, don't paraphrase it away into abstractness
- biblical writers had the lexical ability to say things the way modern translators do, but didn't
Three take-aways that stood out:
- the statement "what was the author trying to say" implies that he couldn't express himself, shows lack of respect for author, even if implicitly
- concrete language is more powerful, vivid, real and the Bible is full of it, don't paraphrase it away into abstractness
- biblical writers had the lexical ability to say things the way modern translators do, but didn't
July 29, 2010
As I am writing this, Tyndale House is sponsoring a contest to promote the sale of their New Living Translation (NLT). Among the giveaways are several ipads, an ipod, a kindle and a trip to Hawaii! This “Bible Contest and Giveaway” is called “Breakthrough to Clarity.” Of course, I entered. I may not be a fan of the NLT, but I am of Apple and Hawaii.
To various degrees marketing influences us all. How healthy an impact it has had on modern society is not for this discussion. However, marketing does enter into our consideration of the history of Bible translation. Marketing puts the emphasis on the consumer. It makes the audience supreme. It was this attention to the audience that led to the great divide between translation theories.
Next year, the King James Version (KJV) will celebrate its 400th birthday. For over 360 years the KJV reigned unrivaled. This changed in 1978 with the debut of the New International Version (NIV). The NIV quickly became a best seller. Leland Ryken, in his book Understanding English Bible Translation suggests the “NIV cornered the market because (a) it was the only viable alternative to the obsolete King James Bible, and (b) marketing and advertising made it irresistibly attractive to the masses” (p. 65).
The Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV had the audience in mind from the outset.
A sensitive feeling for style does not always accompany scholarship. Accordingly the Committee on Bible Translation submitted the developing version to a number of stylistic consultants. Two of them read every book of both Old and New Testaments twice—once before and once after the last major revision—and made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading by various kinds of people—young and old, highly educated and less well educated, ministers and laymen.1
What the NIV did in moderation, later translations did in spades. Are all translations created equal? Obviously, translators take different approaches to the text. Are all these approaches of equal value?
In Understanding English Bible Translation author Leland Ryken, professor of English at Wheaton College since 1968, lays out The Case For An Essentially Literal Approach. Understanding English Bible Translation is a follow up to his earlier book The Word of God in English. If you choose to read just one, I suggest reading Understanding English Bible Translation, a more enjoyable, though not as in-depth, read. Be advised, having served as literary stylist for the ESV and as coeditor of the ESV Literary Study Bible, Ryken is not an impartial observer. He states right up front this “is a book about the theory and practice of English Bible translation. Its aim is to clarify the current English Bible translation scene and to present arguments in favor of an essentially literal translation philosophy as being better than dynamic equivalence” (p. 13). I believe he accomplishes what he set out to do.
In Bible translation work, there are two extremes. The King James tradition (starting with Wycliffe and Tyndale and including Cloverdale and Rogers and the Geneva Bible) uses an essentially literal approach to translation known as “verbal equivalence or formal equivalence” (p. 49). This formal approach was continued with the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New King James Version and the English Standard Version. The other end of the translation spectrum is known as “dynamic equivalence” (p. 57). This began with the work of Eugene Nida and is seen first in the Good News Bible, then the New International Version, the New Living Translation, the New Century Version and other more recent translations.
One way Ryken sums up these two extremes is whether the goal of translation work is allegiance to the audience or the author. Eugene Nida is the developer of the dynamic equivalence theory of Bible translation. “One of Eugene Nida’s translation principles is ‘the priority of the needs of the audience over the forms of language.’ Nida then caters to readers even more specifically: ‘the use of language by persons twenty-five to thirty-five years of age has priority over the language of the older people or of children’; ‘in certain situations the speech of women should have priority over the speech of men’” (p. 74). Here the audience reigns supreme. In a more literal approach, the translators instead strive to find an English equivalent for the actual words of the author (or should we say Author?).
This contrast between formal and dynamic equivalence is clearly demonstrated throughout the book. Ryken builds a very strong argument for the formal approach, demonstrating that many dynamic equivalent translations are essentially paraphrases.
Ryken often backs up his statements by referring directly to the prefaces of the dynamic equivalence translations, thus avoiding putting words in their mouths. He also repeatedly provides examples of dynamic equivalence verse translations and how they differ from the original words of the authors. Using Matthew 6:22-23 as a test case, Ryken quotes from a number of dynamic equivalent translations. His conclusion:
Even a cursory reading of the passages leaves us with an accurate general impression: the translators are continuously nervous about the possibility that readers will be unable to handle the passage accurately and/or easily in its untouched form. As a result, the translators have become commentators as well as translators, constantly tugging at the original text to make it something different from what the original text says: “sunshine into your soul”; “plunges you into darkness”; “dark with sin”; “a window for your body”; “all the light you need”; “open your eyes wide in wonder and belief”; “pull the blinds on your windows.” (p.102)
Boxes scattered throughout the book contain very informative quotes from others who have something important to add to the discussion.
Ryken believes that the reader ought to be able to trust a translation to give us an English version of what the original author wrote. An essentially literal translation labors to do just that. He agrees with biblical scholar Raymond Van Leeuwen who states “It is hard to know what the Bible means when we are uncertain about what it says” (p.28).
I recommend this book, especially to those who stand in the aisle at the bookstore agonizing over which translation to choose.
March 11, 2020
Leland Ryken makes quite a compelling case for "essentially literal" translations.
His points were succinct, his conclusions to each chapter were helpful, and he also provides quotes from other people throughout the book. He gives enough translation comparison examples to show he isn't just cherry-picking, but also not too many examples to feel redundant. By the second half of the book some examples felt redundant, but he does acknowledge in the introduction that there will have to be some redundancy in the book to make his point. I've always been using ESV because it was the most literal, but still kept some of the beauty. I wasn't able to flesh some of my arguments out in the way that Dr. Ryken, a professor of English literature, could, so I truly appreciate his work in helping me flesh out some of my arguments that I've been using for a while now.
His points were succinct, his conclusions to each chapter were helpful, and he also provides quotes from other people throughout the book. He gives enough translation comparison examples to show he isn't just cherry-picking, but also not too many examples to feel redundant. By the second half of the book some examples felt redundant, but he does acknowledge in the introduction that there will have to be some redundancy in the book to make his point. I've always been using ESV because it was the most literal, but still kept some of the beauty. I wasn't able to flesh some of my arguments out in the way that Dr. Ryken, a professor of English literature, could, so I truly appreciate his work in helping me flesh out some of my arguments that I've been using for a while now.
September 30, 2017
4.5 Important book that any English reading Christian should read. Before reading, I was relatively uninformed regarding the many different English versions of the Bible, and particularly the distinction between essentially literal translations and dynamic equivalent translations and which versions fell into which category. Happy I made the switch recently from NIV to RSV.
The author makes a compelling case for literal translations and recognizes the dynamic equivalents still hold value but should be seen as commentaries not translations.
I found the book fairly repetitive but filled with compelling points from start to finish.
The author makes a compelling case for literal translations and recognizes the dynamic equivalents still hold value but should be seen as commentaries not translations.
I found the book fairly repetitive but filled with compelling points from start to finish.
June 24, 2018
This is a powerful and important defence of the essentially literal translation method, and a devastating critique of the dynamic equivalence method.
December 11, 2018
I enjoyed this book, as it gave me what I wanted: a greater understanding of the logic behind different methods of Bible translation. I am an ESV fan myself, although I do find it helpful to read in other versions at times. A few I like to use at times are the NASB, NKJV, and even NIV at times.
I would only recommend this book if you have a burning desire to understand this topic more. If you do, this is a great resource.
I would only recommend this book if you have a burning desire to understand this topic more. If you do, this is a great resource.
October 22, 2009
Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach
By
Leland Ryken
ISBN-10: 1433502798
ISBN-13: 9781433502798
The one who avoids this book due to a fear of it being overly scholarly and hard to understand will certainly make a mistake. While the book is indeed well researched and intelligently written, it is also easy to read and to understand.
Ryken deals with the differences between dynamic equivalent translations of the Bible (those that translate in a more thought by thought manner) and formal equivalent translations (those that attempt to translate word for word).
Ryken claims that an essentially literal translation, or a formal equivalent translation is more to be desired than a dynamic equivalent.
Why? He gives a number of reasons. Two of these reasons stand out to me above all others. One is that the dynamic equivalent translations are not consistent. They vary from one translation to the other so that one is not sure which translation is correct. This leads to a destabilized text. It leads people to wonder which is correct. Another reason is that dynamic equivalent translations often present commentary instead of translation. Thus the reader gets the understanding of the translator, but doesn't always get the understanding of the underlying text.
An essentially literal translation, however, seeks to translate word for word the original language into the receptor language. For the subject at hand, that language is English, because that is the language with which Ryken deals. (As an aside, I read one person who took issue with Ryken because things don't always work as well when translating into languages other than English. Ryken specifically states, however, that he is only dealing with English and understands that other languages present significant challenges in this respect.) With an essentially literal translation, there may be variance in the words used to translate, yet they will still yield basically the same understanding when compared one to the other. An essentially literal translation will also present essentially the same words and phrases as the original texts so that the reader will be reading basically the same thing that the Biblical writers presented to their original readers.
As one who grew up under the King James Version and still uses it today, I was impressed that this author respects the KJV instead of breezily dismissing it. In fact, he claims (and I think, rightly so) that all essentially literal translations follow the same philosophy as the translators of the KJV.
In a day when there is much confusion over Bible translations and translating philosophies this book is a breath of fresh air. I believe it also brings some needed clarity to the debate. I could only wish that everyone saw the need for an essentially literal translation.
(This book provided for review by Crossway Publishers.)
By
Leland Ryken
ISBN-10: 1433502798
ISBN-13: 9781433502798
The one who avoids this book due to a fear of it being overly scholarly and hard to understand will certainly make a mistake. While the book is indeed well researched and intelligently written, it is also easy to read and to understand.
Ryken deals with the differences between dynamic equivalent translations of the Bible (those that translate in a more thought by thought manner) and formal equivalent translations (those that attempt to translate word for word).
Ryken claims that an essentially literal translation, or a formal equivalent translation is more to be desired than a dynamic equivalent.
Why? He gives a number of reasons. Two of these reasons stand out to me above all others. One is that the dynamic equivalent translations are not consistent. They vary from one translation to the other so that one is not sure which translation is correct. This leads to a destabilized text. It leads people to wonder which is correct. Another reason is that dynamic equivalent translations often present commentary instead of translation. Thus the reader gets the understanding of the translator, but doesn't always get the understanding of the underlying text.
An essentially literal translation, however, seeks to translate word for word the original language into the receptor language. For the subject at hand, that language is English, because that is the language with which Ryken deals. (As an aside, I read one person who took issue with Ryken because things don't always work as well when translating into languages other than English. Ryken specifically states, however, that he is only dealing with English and understands that other languages present significant challenges in this respect.) With an essentially literal translation, there may be variance in the words used to translate, yet they will still yield basically the same understanding when compared one to the other. An essentially literal translation will also present essentially the same words and phrases as the original texts so that the reader will be reading basically the same thing that the Biblical writers presented to their original readers.
As one who grew up under the King James Version and still uses it today, I was impressed that this author respects the KJV instead of breezily dismissing it. In fact, he claims (and I think, rightly so) that all essentially literal translations follow the same philosophy as the translators of the KJV.
In a day when there is much confusion over Bible translations and translating philosophies this book is a breath of fresh air. I believe it also brings some needed clarity to the debate. I could only wish that everyone saw the need for an essentially literal translation.
(This book provided for review by Crossway Publishers.)
November 30, 2015
This was a fairly solid book defending literal translations of the Bible (as opposed to dynamic ones) that did a really good job of defending a lot of parts of its thesis. Ryken used a lot of really good examples to support his case and convinced me that these are really two different philosophies at work here instead of just being a spectrum.
Nevertheless, there were two flaws in this book that ended up causing me to knock a start from what would otherwise be a solid four-star book. First, especially in the beginning of the book, Ryken uses a lot of rhetoric against dynamic translations, which, as he explains his position, does seem to be fair attacks to make, but which also makes me less likely to recommend this book to someone who currently appreciates dynamic translations. While those who already are on the side of literal-translations would have no problems with it, it seems like it might be too much of a turn-off for someone who comes in with that position.
A bit more majorly, however, Ryken states multiple times that the Bible ought to be written in a higher language than the common language and ought to thus have a sense of regality about it. The problem is that he never addresses the argument that Koine Greek (which the Bible is written in) was the common tongue of the time, and thus dynamic translations better reflect this. Now, from other sources that I've read, I think that this is a pretty flawed argument for dynamic translations and don't think that it holds much ground. However, to overlook this common arguments is a rather serious flaw to make and leaves a pretty big gap in the book's argument.
Aside from these two flaws, this book really does do a really good job of explaining its position, and it helped me a lot to coalesce my own thoughts on why I believe literal translations are better. And so I would definitely recommend it to others who are tentatively on the side of literal translations but don't quite know why. But Ryken doesn't make an airtight case, and I don't think it's particularly inviting to those who might disagree with it. So while Ryken makes a great case in many different areas here, its flaws keep it back from its full potential.
Rating: 3.5 Stars (Good).
Nevertheless, there were two flaws in this book that ended up causing me to knock a start from what would otherwise be a solid four-star book. First, especially in the beginning of the book, Ryken uses a lot of rhetoric against dynamic translations, which, as he explains his position, does seem to be fair attacks to make, but which also makes me less likely to recommend this book to someone who currently appreciates dynamic translations. While those who already are on the side of literal-translations would have no problems with it, it seems like it might be too much of a turn-off for someone who comes in with that position.
A bit more majorly, however, Ryken states multiple times that the Bible ought to be written in a higher language than the common language and ought to thus have a sense of regality about it. The problem is that he never addresses the argument that Koine Greek (which the Bible is written in) was the common tongue of the time, and thus dynamic translations better reflect this. Now, from other sources that I've read, I think that this is a pretty flawed argument for dynamic translations and don't think that it holds much ground. However, to overlook this common arguments is a rather serious flaw to make and leaves a pretty big gap in the book's argument.
Aside from these two flaws, this book really does do a really good job of explaining its position, and it helped me a lot to coalesce my own thoughts on why I believe literal translations are better. And so I would definitely recommend it to others who are tentatively on the side of literal translations but don't quite know why. But Ryken doesn't make an airtight case, and I don't think it's particularly inviting to those who might disagree with it. So while Ryken makes a great case in many different areas here, its flaws keep it back from its full potential.
Rating: 3.5 Stars (Good).
February 13, 2016
Though the first chapter of defining terms was essential, it almost made me put down the book because I thought the rest of it would be written in a similar way. But instead, what followed was an intriguing and clearly made case for an essentially literal translation. Ryken gave a brief overview of an essentially literal translation, then went on to give solid examples of how the dynamic equivalent and paraphrase translations assume we don't know how to read, and thus often adds in details and takes out metaphors that are meant to provoke thought. Though I've always used an essentially literal translation, this was helpful to give me language and solid examples of why It is a superior translation.
December 11, 2011
i received this book free at a conference in which Leland Ryken was a speaker. It sat on my shelf for about a year before finally getting around to it. I'm glad I did.
It was interesting reading. Dr. Ryken sows the benefits of studying from an essentially literal translation of the Bible and to show the drawbacks of dynamic equivalent translations. Some of the early chapters were a bit overwhelming, but I learned a lot. It's one of those books I'll be returning to in the future because I have a feeling I'll learn even more on subsequent readings.
It was interesting reading. Dr. Ryken sows the benefits of studying from an essentially literal translation of the Bible and to show the drawbacks of dynamic equivalent translations. Some of the early chapters were a bit overwhelming, but I learned a lot. It's one of those books I'll be returning to in the future because I have a feeling I'll learn even more on subsequent readings.
August 22, 2014
There is really no perfect translation.
The two best translations using the oldest originals is the NASB and ESV.
There are translation choices in both versions that could have been better.
I also really like the HCSB. While Dr. Ryken would consider it a Dynamic translation, I consider it a pretty good representation of Dynamic and Literal.
These are really my top three translations ESV, NASB and HCSB.
The two best translations using the oldest originals is the NASB and ESV.
There are translation choices in both versions that could have been better.
I also really like the HCSB. While Dr. Ryken would consider it a Dynamic translation, I consider it a pretty good representation of Dynamic and Literal.
These are really my top three translations ESV, NASB and HCSB.
August 18, 2014
This gave me a clear and deep understanding of how important the work or biblical translators is. I want to read what God the Holy Spirit breathed out, and I am thankful for faithful translators that are committed to communicating God's Word in English.
October 14, 2011
Fascinating read although Ryken's arguments for his position are a little repetitive.
September 13, 2017
Some good arguments, but I feel like the discussion is a little more complex than Ryken's presentation.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews