COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]    MUSLIMS DON'T COMPREHEND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPECULATION VS. FACT


[1]       SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 991A]

And what great nation is there, that hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?  Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes saw, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life; but make them known unto thy children and thy children’s children;  Deuteronomy 4:8  [New World Translation Revised: NWTr]

To the Israelites, Moses posed this question above.  Indeed, no other nation enjoyed those benefits. Under the reign of King Solomon, who in his youth sought to carry out Jehovah’s laws, the people “lived in security” and enjoyed peace and prosperity, “Judah and Israel were as numerous as the grains of sand by the sea; they were eating and drinking and rejoicing. Solo·mon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines and to the boundary of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solo·mon all the days of his life. Solo·mon’s food for each day was 30 cor measures of fine flour and 60 cor measures of flour, 10 fattened cattle, 20 pastured cattle, and 100 sheep, besides some stags, gazelles, roebucks, and fattened cuckoos.  For he controlled everything this side of the River, from Tiphsah to Gaza, including all the kings on this side of the River; and he enjoyed peace in every region, all around him.  Judah and Israel lived in security, everyone under his own vine and under his own fig tree, from Dan to Beer-sheba, all the days of Solo·mon”  (1 Kings 4:20 – 25,  [NWTr])

Regrettably, the Israelites eventually turned their backs on their God.  Through the prophet Jeremiah, God declared: “The wise have been put to shame. They have become terrified and will be caught.  Look! They have rejected the word of Jehovah, And what wisdom do they have?”  (Jeremiah 8:9,  [NWTr])    The result was that Jerusalem became “the bloodguilty city” full of “detestable things.” Finally it was brought to ruin and lay desolate for 70 years.—Ezekiel 22:2; Jeremiah 25:11.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT RELIGION AND THE BIBLE, GO TO, 

1) WWW.JW.ORG

2) https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/religioustruths/ 

3) http://religioustruths.boardhost.com/ 

4) http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/ 

5) https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/

6) http://religioustruthsbyiris.createmybb3.com/ 

7) http://religioustruths.forumotion.com/ 

To enjoy an online Bible study called “Follow the Christ” go to,http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/thread/1417398076/last-1417398076/Digital+Book+On+18+Part+Follow+Christ+Bible+Study 

Your Friend in Christ Iris89 

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth. "Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to WWW.JW.ORG!

[2]   MUSLIMS DON'T  COMPREHEND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPECULATION VS. FACT"

Some Muslim individuals use off beat encyclopedias to try and prove their derogatory myths, it matters not that even these sources identify the information as speculative.   In fact the authors/editors of this encyclopedia, LoveToKnow, clearly show they do NOT HAVE much faith in their work with the statement, " Since this information is from 1911 it is outdated and contains many OCR errors (typos). It is for research purposes only. The information is "AS IS", "WITH ALL FAULTS". User assumes all risk of use, damage, or injury. You agree that we have no liability for any damages. We are not liable for any consequential, incidental, indirect, or special damages." So if they do not vouch for its reliability we must conclude it is unreliable and just hear say speculation; whereas, I use all kinds of encyclopedias, i.e., the renown well recognized ones, not ones like, ""JOSEPH (HUSBAND OF MARY)." LoveToKnow 1911 Online Encyclopedia. (c) 2003, 2004 LoveToKnow."   However, even that encyclopoedia clearly says that little is known about Joseph and only his geneology is given in the Bible, it no where gives his age; whereas, PapaMo claimed previously it was 90 years, now see the facts of what I say for yourself, "JOSEPH, in the New Testament, the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. He is represented as a descendant of the house of David, and his genealogy appears in two divergent forms in Matt. i. 1-17 and Luke iii. 23-38. The latter is probably much more complete and accurate in details. The former, obviously artificial in structure (notice 3X14 generations), traces the Davidic descent through kings, and is governed by an apologetic purpose. Of Joseph's personal history practically nothing is recorded in the Bible. The facts concerning him common to the two birth-narratives (Matt, i.-ii.; Luke i.-ii.) are: (a) that he was a descendant of David, (b) that Mary was already betrothed to him when she was found with child of the Holy Ghost, and (c) that he lived at Nazareth after the birth of Christ; but these facts are handled differently in each case. It is noticeable that, in Matthew, Joseph is prominent (e.g. he receives an annunciation from an angel), while in Luke's narrative he is completely subordinated. Bp Gore (The Incarnation, Bampton lecture for 1891, p. 78) points out that Matthew narrates everything from Joseph's side, Luke from Mary's, and infers that the narrative of the former may ultimately be based on Joseph's account, that of the latter, on Mary's. The narratives seem to have been current (in a poetical form) among the early Jewish-Christian community of Palestine. At Nazareth Joseph followed the trade of a carpenter (Matt. xiii. 55). It is probable that he had died before the public ministry of Christ; for no mention is made of him in passages relating to this period where the mother and brethren of Jesus are introduced; and from John xix. 26 it is clear that he was not alive at the time of the Crucifixion.

Joseph was the father of several children (Matt. xiii. 55), but accolding to ecclesiastical tradition by a former marriage. The reading of Matt. ~. 16, in the Sinaitic Palimpsest (Joseph . . . begat Jesus, who is called the Christ) also makes him the natural father of Jesus, and this was the view of certain early heretical sects, but it seems never to have been held in orthodox Christian circles. According to various apocryphal gospels (conveniently collected in B. H. Cowpers The Apocryphal Gospels, 1881), when married to Mary he was a widower already 80 years of age, and the father of four sons and two daughters; his first wifes name was Salome and she was a connection of the family of John the Baptist.[source -  LoveToKnow 1911 Online Encyclopedia. (c) 2003, 2004 LoveToKnow
]
However, the Bible the ultimate standard does NOT say anything about a former marriage so anything said on that is pure speculation.    Let's look at what the ultimate standard, the Bible says:

Matthew 1:16, " and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (American Standard Version; ASV), NOTICE no note of Joseph having been a widow.

Matthew 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." (ASV).
Matthew 1:20, "But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." (ASV).
Mark 6:3, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him." (ASV), NOTICE , it says his brothers and sisters, NOT, half-brothers and sisters.
Luke 1:27 , "to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary." (ASV).
This same individual said,

- Aisha was engaged to another man before Muhammad (PPBUH) , that gives us an idea about her readiness for marriage as well as to traditions of a different era ...

Now is he trying to say that Muhammed stole her from another man?    In those days, individuals did NOT just brake engagements on a lark as some do today.    They were considered once engaged, actually betrothed, as belonging to the other family in those days, and even today to a degree in my own culture, so let's get real.

Now this same individual quoted the following in a futile attempt to justify Muhammad taking 9 year old Aisha as his wife,

Pedophilia TODAY is defined as sexual interest toward children, either prepubescent or at the beginning of puberty ..with age difference greater than 5 years ..so by today's standards ..Joseph would incorrectly be considered a pedophile ..whether he had sex with Mary or not ..[source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia]

Obviously, thereby clearly showing that Muhammad had done something wrong.    This was clearly an admission by a Muslim that Muhammed had skeletons in his proverbial closet, and incredibly he did this while throwing derogatory speculative charges at Joseph the husband of the virgin Mary.    This clearly shows desperation on their part to throw derogatory comments at the Bible and true Christianity.   In fact, other Muslims dredge up writings of so called Bible critics who are just individuals out to grandiose themselves and their own ego and get an audience and who care NOT about facts and realities.   They insinuate that apparent contradictions, ones that without further investigation, are real contradictions and make other unfounded speculative charges.

The most ridicules part of the entire absurd scenario is the fact that Muhammad was a plagiarist who actually got his material for writing the Koran from the Bible and did not even do a good job of copying; hence, if the Bible had any errors, these would have been exponentially exacerbated in the Quran (Koran).    Let's look at one example of a scripture copied from the Bible not too well and how confused Muslims who do not comprehend the Bible even thing the Bible original is saying something bad as they do not comprehend it is saying the same thing as the Quran (Koran) that Muhammad got his material from.    In the writing, Muslims do Not Comprehend the Bible it shows this clearly, " Muslims clearly do not comprehend the Bible and see problems where there are none, and come to completely wrong conclusions. This is strange given the fact that their holy book is actually a plagiarized knockoff from the Bible. Let's look at a few instances where they utterly fail to comprehend, one of them in fact where their book is actually saying the same thing as the Bible in different words.

LUKE 1:35 VS. SURA 3:47:

Let's first look at what the Quran (Koran) says at Sura 3:47:

Sura 3:47, "She said, "My Lord, how can I have a son, when no man has touched me?" He said, "GOD thus creates whatever He wills. To have anything done, He simply says to it, `Be,' and it is."

And, Sura 3:48 says, ""He will teach him the scripture, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel." Interestingly here the Quran (Koran) actually speaks of the first five (5) books of the Bible, the Torah; yet today many Muslims rail against the Bible from which their book the Quran (Koran) was plagiarized from.

Now the Bible says at Luke 1:35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God." (American Standard Version; ASV).

Interestingly although both the Quran's (Koran's) 'Be' and the Bible's (in some translations only) overshadow both refer to exactly the same thing, but use different words, some Muslims do not comprehend this and think overshadow has bad connotations. Both these passages refer to God's (YHWH) using his active force or power referred to in the Bible as Spirit or Holy Spirit to implant the life force of his only begotten Son, that we know as Jesus (Yeshua) into the womb of the virgin Mary as recorded in Matthew 1:18-25, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; 25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS." (ASV). Now some may not understand just what this force or power of God (YHWH) is so here is a brief explanation.

A brief consideration on and reasoning on Acts 10:19-20; Acts 16:6; Acts 13:2-4; Acts 15:28; Romans 8:14; Romans 8:26; Ephesians 4:30; and 1 Corinthians 2:10-12 will show that the Spirit or Holy Spirit is God's (YHWH's) active force or power and emanates from him and is a force completely controlled by him, and is capable of giving him feedback and gathering for him information.

But first let's see why the Spirit is indeed God's (YHWH's) active force or power from an understanding of the ancient word 'pneu'ma' translated Spirit or Holy Spirit in English. The neuter Koine Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used with the neuter pronoun "it" since it is lacks gender. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators of the Bible as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa·ra'kle·tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. And in Ancient Hebrew the word here rendered Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, or Spirit which is translated from 'ru'ach' meaning "breath; wind; spirit." In Latin, it is spiritus, and in Sanskrit, 'prana' which means both "breath" and "spirit." And the pertinent definition in the Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary (ISBN 0-308-10309-2 and 0-308-10310-6) clearly states, (4) <Often Cap.> In the Bible, the creative, animating power or divine influence of God...[etymology-[<Old French, 'espirit' <Latin, 'spiritus' bredth, spirit <'spirare' to breathe]. So we can see it, the Holy Spirit or Spirit is truly God's (YHWH's) active force or power and not a spirit being as are Almighty God (YHWH) and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua). This point is very well made in the New International Version at Luke 1:35, "The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[1] the Son of God." (The New International Version; NIV). Sure shows that the Holy Spirit is nothing but God's (YHWH's) active force.

Now from the study of science and technology we know that with respect a force there can be four possibilities or possibly five applicable questions, which are as follows:

(1) Is it an uncontrolled force?

(2) Is it a controlled force?

(3) Is it controlled, but without feedback?

(4) Is it controlled, but with feedback?

Is it direct or indirect feedback?

However 1 Corinthians 2:10-12 shows it to be a controlled force with feedback that appears to be direct feedback, "But unto us God revealed [them] through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. 12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God." (American Standard Version; ASV), clearly showing that the "spirit which is from God," and God "revealed [them] through the Spirit," and uses it to search all things, thus showing it is a controlled spirit capable of feedback. God (YHWH) has complete control over his power or force and can choose its fields of operations as testified to at Romans 8:14, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." (ASV) clearly showing he can use to lead individuals and that it belongs to him. And John 16:13 clearly shows it as a force, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come." Since it is quite clear that it is a controlled force, "shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak,"

Clearly it is a controlled force used by God (YHWH) to do many things as testified to at Acts 10:19-20, "While Peter was meditationg on the vision, the Spirit said to him, 'There are two men looking for you. 20 Get up and go down, and without hesitation go on with them, for I have sent them.'" (The New Testament by Charles B. Williams); And the fact that it is a closely controlled force is further affirmed at Acts 16:6, "And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man's house:" (ASV); And at Acts 13:2-4, "And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus." (ASV); And at Acts 15:28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:" (ASV) clearly indicating direct feedback to and response by God (YHWH); which is further shown by Ephesians 4:30, "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption" (ASV) which once more indicates that is gives direct feedback and it reacts to the feelings of God (YHWH) from which it emanates thus a tightly controlled force or power.

Thus we can see and have an accurate understanding of what is being spoken of in both the Quran (Koran) and the Bible and see that it is exactly the same event and/or occurrence." [source - Muslims do Not Comprehend the Bible by Iris the Preacher 2004].
 

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]  RE THE NWT AT JOHN 14:14   


[1]       SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 993A]

And the king’s servants said unto the king, Behold, thy servants are ready to do whatsoever my lord the king shall appoint.  16  And the king went forth, and all his household after him. And the king left ten women, which were concubines, to keep the house.  17  And the king went forth, and all the people after him, and tarried in a place that was far off.  18  And all his servants passed on beside him; and all the Cherethites, and all the Pelethites, and all the Gittites, six hundred men which came after him from Gath, passed on before the king.  19  Then said the king to Ittai the Gittite, Wherefore goest thou also with us? return to thy place, and abide with the king: for thou art a stranger, and also an exile.  20  Whereas thou camest but yesterday, should I this day make thee go up and down with us? seeing I go whither I may, return thou, and take back thy brethren: mercy and truth be with thee.  21  And Ittai answered the king, and said, As the LORD liveth, and as my lord the king liveth, surely in what place my lord the king shall be, whether in death or life, even there also will thy servant be.”  2 Samuel 15:15 – 21, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

At this time King David was dealing with his rebellious son Absalom who sought to make himself king, and had to flee Jerusalem.  His friend Hushai came to him and as recorded at 2 Samuel 15:32, [AV] “And it came to pass, that when David was come to the top of the mount, where he worshipped God, behold, Hushai the Archite came to meet him with his coat rent, and earth upon his head:”  And David sent Hushai to Jerusalem to give bad council to Absalom as testified to at 2 Samuel 16:16 – 18, [AV] “And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite, David’s friend, was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save the king, God save the king.  17  And Absalom said to Hushai, Is this thy kindness to thy friend? why wentest thou not with thy friend?  18  And Hushai said unto Absalom, Nay; but whom the LORD, and this people, and all the men of Israel, choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide.”  And, Hushai’s council was taken instead of that of Ahithophel as recorded at 2 Samuel 17:5 – 8, [AV] “Then said Absalom, Call now Hushai the Archite also, and let us hear likewise what he saith.  6  And when Hushai was come to Absalom, Absalom spake unto him, saying, Ahithophel hath spoken after this manner: shall we do after his saying? if not; speak thou.  7  And Hushai said unto Absalom, The counsel that Ahithophel hath given is not good at this time.  8  For, said Hushai, thou knowest thy father and his men, that they be mighty men, and they be chafed in their minds, as a bear robbed of her whelps in the field: and thy father is a man of war, and will not lodge with the people.”  The council of Hushai was accepted by Absalom per 2 Samuel 17:14, [AV] “And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For the LORD had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring evil upon Absalom.” 

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT RELIGION AND THE BIBLE, GO TO, 

1) WWW.JW.ORG

2) https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/religioustruths/ 

3) http://religioustruths.boardhost.com/ 

4) http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/ 

5) https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/

6) http://religioustruthsbyiris.createmybb3.com/ 

7) http://religioustruths.forumotion.com/ 

To enjoy an online Bible study called “Follow the Christ” go to,http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/thread/1417398076/last-1417398076/Digital+Book+On+18+Part+Follow+Christ+Bible+Study 

Your Friend in Christ Iris89 

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth. "Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to WWW.JW.ORG!

[2]   Re the NWT at John 14:14. Here:

http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/nwtbias.htm,
about 7/8ths down,
you can read the following:
>
> Robert Bowman: "John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the
NWT
this reads, "If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it."
The Greek
text in the _KIT_, however, has "me" after "ask."
It therefore should
be translated, "If you ask _me_ anything in my name, I will do
it."
It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but
most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern editions of the
Greek New Testament (including those used by the JWs in producing the
NWT) include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned
this reading in a note."
> Reply:
>
> Don't forget: Bowman is including this example in The New World
Translation because it is one where he believes it shows the
"extreme
bias" of this Bible version of Jehovah's Witnesses.Is it really?
>
> Bowman may well have a point in that perhaps the New World
Translation "ought to have mentioned this reading in a
note," that
is, that the Greek text of Westcott and Hort contains it. However,not
all has been said on the matter.
>
> First of all there are other translations that base their work
on
the Westcott and Hort Greek text yet similarly do not include the
word "me" here in John 14:14 and neither add any footnote
as to their
reason for doing so. The Twentieth Century New Testament and The New
Testament in the Langauge of the People by C.B.Williams are two
examples. The latter translator said in the foreword to his
work, "Our translation is based on the Westcott and Hort Greek
text... When there are conflicting variations in the Greek
Manuscripts,we have generally followed the Vatican Manuscript, which
is the oldest and usually conceded the best."
>
> Bowman is correct that in the KIT(Kingdom Interlinear
Translation)
the "Greek text..has "me" after "ask". The
Greek text being,of
course, the Westcott and Hort text. But what must be known is that
although the Westcott and Hort Greek text is reproduced in the left
hand column of each page of the KIT, the notation of Westcott and
Hort is not. This is important to know. If we look at the Greek text
as seen in The New Testament in the Original Greek, MacMillan and
Co.,Limited, London 1926 we can see the original notation of these
textual critics. At John 14:14 we can see that the word for
"me," in
Greek has square brackets around it. What does this indicate? On page
581 of the above work we find an explanation of what this means.I
will quote from it:
>
> "Alternative Readings: Wherever it has been found
impossible to
decide that one of two or more various readings is certainly right,
alternative readings are given: and no alternative reading is given
which does not appear to have a reasonable probability of being the
true reading. The primary place in the text itself is assigned to
those readings which on the whole are more probable, or in cases of
equal probablitiy the better attested. The other alternative readings
occupy a secondary place,with a notation which varies according as
they differ from the primary readings by Omission, by Addition, or by
Substitution.
> "A secondary reading consisting in the Omission of words
retained
in the primary reading is marked by simple brackets [ ] in the
text..."
>
> So we know that Westcott and Hort did not consider the word
"me" in
John 14:14 as the primary reading. This is possibly the reason why
the NWT Translation Committee did not deem it necessary, because of
following the primary reading at this place, to include a note as
Bowman says it would have been "the very least that they could
do."
But if Bowman is right here then he should also expect that it would
have been the "very least" that Goodspeed could have done.
Why?
Because Goodspeed used the Westcott and Hort Greek text also in The
Bible-An American Translation. And if the word "me" in John
14:14 is
the secondary reading then according to Bowman Goodspeed should
have "at the very least" put a note in his work indicating
that he
followed this secondary, not the primary reading, of the Greek text
of Westcott and Hort.
>
> In 1984 the New World Translation was revised. The Greek text
that
was used for the portion that is the Christian Greek Scriptures or
the so-called New Testament was said to be not only based on Westcott
and Hort, Nestle, Bover and Merk but now others. Now,Bowman,if I can
remind you,said "It is true that some later Greek manuscripts
omitted
this word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern
editions of the Greek New Testament (including those used by the JWs
in producing the NWT) include it." But in the New World
Translation
Reference Edition of 1984 we do have a note under John 14:14. It
informs us that the following manuscripts do not have the word
"me"
in this place in the Greek. They are: Codex Alexandrius(5th
century);Bezae Codices,Greek and Latin(5th and 6th centuries) and the
Old Latin Versions(2nd to 4th century.) Against this reading the note
informs us those manuscripts that do contain the the word
"me." They
areapyrus Bodmer 2(c.200 A.D.);Codex Sinaiticus(4th
century);Vatican Ms 1209(4th century);Freer Gospels(5th
century);Latin Vulgate by Jerome(c 400 A.D.);Philoxenian-Harclean
Syriac Version(6th and 7th century);Syriac Peshitta,Christian Aramaic
(5th century).
> However,the note also says that the reading without the word
"me"
in John 14:14 is in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23 of John. If it is
so that Jesus did say "Ask me anything..." in 14:14 then he
contradicted himself later in 15:16 and 16:23 where he is reported to
have said,respectively, "...in order that no matter what you ask
the
Father in my name he might give it to you" and "And in that
day you
will ask me no question at all. Most truly I say to you,If you ask
the Father for anything he will give it to you in my name." This
no
doubt influenced the NWTTC decision to not use "me"
here.(compare
this with what is said in the Foreword in The Complete
Gospels,Annotated Scholars Version (editor Robert
J.Miller,1994,revised and expanded edition) "The translational
panel
undertook to establish its own Greek text in the hundreds of places
the handwritten manuscripts differ from each other. In these
decisions we often depart from the Greek text underlying other
translations." At John 14:14 this version reads: "If you
request
anything using my name,I'll do it." Note, no "me" here
either)
>
> The Revised English Bible of 1989 were also aware, no doubt,
that,
as Bowman said,"... that some later Greek manuscripts omitted
this
word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern
editions of the Greek New Testament (including those used by the JWs
in producing the NWT) include it." Yet they too, like the New
World
Translation do not include the word "me" in Jesus' words at
John
14:14. So much for Bowman's example of "extreme bias" of
the NWT
Translation Committee! One has to wonder who is really the one
with "extreme bias"!!!
>
COMMENTS BY RENOWN SCHOLAR SCHMIDT:

This verse is one that has fallen to some textual
corruption/variation.
Alexandrinus, Codez Bezae, K, L, 041, 044 and the Byzantine omit it,
as do the following Bibles:

(CEV)  I will do whatever you ask me to do.

(LITV)  If you ask anything in My Name, I will do it.

(MKJV)  If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.

(WEB)  If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it.

(ASV)  If ye shall ask anything in my name, that will I do.

(KJV)  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

See also Rieu, New English Bible, C.B. Williams, New Berkeley
Version, Revised Standard Version, Jewish NT, The Scriptures (ISR)
etc.

You have to remember that the NWT, like many other Bibles, does not
and never had slavishly followed its base text (Westcott and Hort).
If you check the critical apparatus at the beginning of the NWT-Ref
Ed. you will see that we make us of quite an eclectic array.
agape
Heinz Schmitz
Reader in Textual Criticism & New Testament Greek
North Carolina 

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]  HATE A REAL WORLD PROBLEM TODAY AND WHEN JESUS (YESHUA) WAS ON EARTH

[1]       SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 994A]

“Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.   59  And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."   Acts 8:58 – 59, (American Standard Version; ASV)

here we see Saul participating in the murder of a disciple of Jesus, Stephen, a heinous evil crime, but the Bible shows at Acts 9:1 – 21 showed how Jesus himself turned Saul into the Apostle Paul, and did not consider his past course of life from preventing him from becoming one of His Apostles, “ But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest   2  and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.   3  Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.  4  And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"   5  And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;   6  but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."   7  The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.   8  Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.   9  And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.   10 ¶  Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord."
11  And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,   12  and he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight."
13  But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem;   14  and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name."   15  But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;
16  for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name."   17  So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."   18  And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,   19  and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus.   20  And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, "He is the Son of God."   21  And all who heard him were amazed, and said, "Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name? And he has come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests."   22  But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.   23 ¶  When many days had passed, the Jews “

(2)  HATE A REAL WORLD PROBLEM TODAY AND WHEN JESUS (YESHUA) WAS ON EARTH

HATE IS EVIL AS MADE CLEAR AT 1 John 3:14, 15), “We know that we have passed over from death to life, because we love the brothers. The one who does not love remains in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him.”  (New World Translation revised; (New World Translation revised; NWTR))

AND AT Leviticus 19:17, 18, “‘You must not hate your brother in your heart. You should by all means reprove your fellow man, so that you will not bear sin along with him. 18 “‘You must not take vengeance nor hold a grudge against the sons of your people, and you must love your fellow man as yourself. I am Jehovah.”  (NWTR)


BUT NOT ALL HATING IS EVIL AS SHOWN AT Psalm 97:10, "O you who love Jehovah, hate what is bad. He is guarding the lives of his loyal ones; He rescues them from the hand of the wicked.  (NWTR)
AND AT  Romans 12:9,  "Let your love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is wicked; cling to what is good."  (NWTR)

ALSO, HATING IS SHOWN BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS AGAINST OTHERS AS SHOWN AT  Proverbs 10:20, "The tongue of the righteous one is like the finest silver, But the heart of the wicked one is worth little."  (NWTR)
AND AT  Proverbs 8:13,  "The fear of Jehovah means the hating of bad. I hate self-exaltation and pride and the evil way and perverse speech."  (NWTR)

YES OVE IS NEEDED INSTEAD OF HATE AS SHOWN AT  Proverbs 10:12,  "Hatred is what stirs up contentions, But love covers over all transgressions"  (NWTR).
AND AT  1 John 4:7, " Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and knows God."  (NWTR)

YES LOVE IS THE OPPOSITE OF HATE, BUT IT DOES IN NO WAY IMPLY THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN NOT HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS, BUT ONLY THEY SHOULD NOT TURN TO HATING AND WISHING ILL ON THOSE THEY DIFFER WITH.

LET'S LOOK AT AN INTERESTING BIBLE PASSAGE SHOWING PURE HATE BY THOSE WHO DIFFERED WITH JESUS (YESHUA) WITH RESPECT A HEALING ON THE SABBATH  Luke 6:9-11, "Then Jesus said to them: “I ask you men, Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to destroy it?” 10 After looking around at them all, he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was restored. 11 But they flew into a senseless rage, and they began to talk over with one another what they might do to Jesus."  (NWTR)

A MODERN DAY EXAMPLE OF PURE HATE IS SHOWN SIMILAR TO THIS WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA, DONALD TRUMP, AND THOSE WHO HATE HIM AND SEEK TO HURT HIM.  HOW SO?

EXAMPLE 1 -  When he nominated one justice for the supreme court, his haters brought up many evil objections and false nu-substantated charges, and even said the accusers of this nominee should be believed even if nothing could be substantiated.   THE BIBLE CLEARLY SHOWS THE NEED FOR CREDIBLE ACCUSATIONS OF GUILT AT  1 Timothy 5:19,  "Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.," BUT THOSE HATING TRUMP WANTED HIS NOMINEE FOUND GUILTY ON NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL.   [NOTE: i am not taking any stand with respect innocence or guilt, but only hate that was shown towards him]
[NOTES:  First, there should be evidence and witnesses per John 8:16 - 17, “16  Yea and if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17  Yea and in your law it is written, that the witness of two men is true.” (American Standard Version), but no witness came forward.
Second, One can fully turn his life around as shown by Saul, an accessory to the murder of Stephen as shown in Acts the 9 th. Chapter.
Third, It is important that all falsehood, wrong doctrine and thinking, etc. be exposed, and hate against fellow man be cleared from the hearts of men.]

EXAMPLE 2 - THIS PRESIDENT WANTED A WALL IN HIS WORDS TO PROTECT THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF AMERICA, BUT HIS HATERS WERE DETERMINED TO  HURT HIM.  THUS.  WHEN HE TRIED TO MAKE AN END ROUND THEM  THEY HATEFULLY  BEGAN TO  TALK OVER WITH ONE ANOTHER WHAT THEY MIGHT DO TO HURT HIM.  [NOTE: i am not taking any stand with respect whether the wall should be built, but only striving to bring out how they are showing hate to him in violation of showing LOVE which they should be showing him].

SO IN CONCLUSION, I AM MAKING THE CASE FOR LOVE IN PLACE OF HATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH   Malachi 1:2,  “I have shown love to you people,” says Jehovah. But you say: “How have you shown us love?” “Was not E?sau the brother of Jacob?” declares Jehovah. “But I loved Jacob, 3 and E?sau I hated; and I made his mountains desolate and left his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.”  (NWRT)

AND AT  Proverbs 6:16-19,  "There are six things that Jehovah hates; Yes, seven things that he detests: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart plotting wicked schemes, and feet that run quickly to evil, 19 A false witness who lies with every breath, And anyone sowing contentions among brothers."  (NWTR)

YES IN THIS TIME OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE END TIMES AS SHOWN AT Matthew 24:12,  "and because of the increasing of lawlessness, the love of the greater number will grow cold."  (NWTR)

AND REALITY SHOWS THAT THE THE OPPOSITE OF LOVE IS APATHY. PER  Proverbs 10:12,  "Hatred is what stirs up contentions, But love covers over all transgressions."  (NWTR)

YES, WE SHOULD PER  1 John 4:7, " Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and knows God."  ((New World Translation revised; NWTR))

CONCLUSION:

ALL SHOULD PURGE THEIR HEARTS OF HATE AND RECOGNIZE A TRUTH STATED AT JOHN 4:8 – 10, “8  He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.   9  Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.   10  Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”  (American Standard Version; ASV)

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT   WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]  SOURCES OF ERROR IN TRANSLATION 


[1]       SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 994A1-2]

And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:  16  And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.  Exodus 1:15 – 16, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

However, the midwives saw the king of Egypt’s request as being wrong, and that it would bring blood quilt upon them per 2 Samuel 23:16 - 17, [AV]  17  And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.  And Exodus 1:17 – 21, [AV] clearly showed, “But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.  18  And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?  19  And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.  20  Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.  21  And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.”   

[2]   SOURCES OF ERROR IN TRANSLATION:

1) Homoioteleuton, "same ending." Perhaps the most common of all forms
of scribal error; almost all manuscripts contain at least a few
instances of it. Homoioteleuton occurs when two words/phrases/lines
end with the same sequence of letters. The scribe, having finished
copying the first, skips to the second, omitting all intervening
words. An English example of homoioteleuton might be the following
trivial instance:
Original reads "Pete went to the store. *_When he reached the
store_* he bought bread and milk." The scribe, skipping from the
first instance of "store" to the second, would write "Pete went to
the store he bought bread and milk."
Homoioteleuton is symbolized in the Nestle apparatus by the symbol
h.t. (which indicates either that a manuscript has a homoioteleuton
error or that a variant is or might be caused by homoioteleuton).

2) "The truth of the matter is that when dealing with religious
writings people are generally far less concerned with accuracy than
with traditional expression, familiar through long use." Toward a
Science of Translating by Eugene A. Nida, see example below;

""Is The Bible A Human Book? Fifteen Baptist Leaders Speak Out" -
Edited by Wayne E. Ward and Joseph F. Green, Published by Broadman
Press 1970, 159 pages.

It would be difficult to find a book written by a number of Baptists
that is more filled with heresy than this 159-page book. Broadman
Press and these "Baptist Leaders" have let go a broadside against
verbal inspiration.  A close look will show just how far the
Southern Baptist Convention has gone in rejecting the inspired Word
of God. Of the fifteen authors, eight are pastors, five are from
five different Southern Baptist Seminaries, one is with the Baptist
Home Mission Board, and one is a former congressman and former
president of the Southern Baptist Convention. The editors say, "For
the first time, a cross section of recognized Baptist leaders spells
out what they really believe about the Bible . . . " These fifteen
men, from different areas of the SBC, undoubtedly represent the
growing liberal power in the SBC.

In the preface of the book it is stated, "These writers do not
necessarily agree with each other or with the editors on all points.
Each one has been completely free to deal with his topic in light of
his own understanding and conviction . . . Each contributor,
therefore, is responsible for his own chapter and cannot be held
responsible for any other part of the book."

The first paragraph printed on the jacket of the book reads as
follows:
"For the first time, a cross section of recognized Baptist leaders
spells out what they really believe about the Bible -- how God
inspired it, how it is different from other books, and how human
factors show up in it." It is stated in the preface "that the nature
of the Bible has been the topic of lively discussion among Southern
Baptists during the last ten years or so. This discussion, is so
lively today that it can be called a debate." It is clear after
reading this book, that only one side of the debate is given,
and the wrong side at that!

Lest we be accused of drawing the wrong conclusions, we shall give
many direct quotes from the book.

* Chapter 1, Could God Trust Human Hands?, by James Flamming, pastor
of First Baptist, Abilene, Texas.

(Page 9): He sees a contradiction in the accounts of creation in
Genesis 1 and 2. He prefers to believe that God did not dictate two
accounts. He contends that these stories were carried by word of
mouth until the days of David and Solomon, then were written down.

(Page 11): He accuses Mark of not cross checking his references. He
claims that Mark made mistakes in quoting from the Old Testament. He
says, "If God could use Mark with sixth grade grammar, and an
occasional misquote from the Old Testament, maybe he can use me
too!" On this page he also suggests that Mark's Gospel may be just a
summary of Simon Peter's preaching while in the city of Rome, and
that the mistakes may have been made by Peter and not Mark. Note
that this puts Peter in Rome, although there is not one verse of
Scripture or any reliable history that Peter ever was in Rome.
This is only Roman Catholic tradition!

(Page 17): Subhead: "Is Biblical Perfection Possible?" "This much is
sure: the Bible was not written by or for perfect people. Yet we are
often unwilling to accept God's stance of freedom and trust in an
imperfect world. We search for a perfect authority to cover our own
weakness or put it in another way, an 'untouched-by-human-weakness'
authority."

In his conclusion the author says: "The Bible is a divine-human
book. Erase the divine side of the equation, and you argue
against the witness of the centuries that the Bible is the Word of
God. (Incidentally, whether the Bible is the Word of God or contains
the Word of God seems to me just so much theological shadow boxing.)"

* Chapter 2, The Humanity of God, John R. Claypool, pastor, Crescent
Hill
Baptist Church, Louisville, KY.

He quotes favorably from Karl Barth and the "Interpreter's Bible."

(Page 27): He seems to find some kind of a contradiction between I
Sam. 8 where Israel demands a king, and I Sam. 9, where God chooses
Saul to be King. Of this event Mr. Claypool said: "What we have here
are obviously opposite interpretations on the same event. To assume
that a single Intelligence dictated both of those accounts makes a
mockery of any kind of rational understanding. On the basis of this
and many other conflicting accounts alone, many serious students of
the Bible have rejected the dictation theory and all of its claims
to literal infallibility and inerrancy. I join them in this
rejection, but for reasons deeper than errors in Scripture. The
nature of God who has power but is love is the crux of the issue for
me."

(Page 28):  "The ultimate authority in a living religion can never
be something as static as a book or an institution or even a human
being . . . This is why it borders on the heretical to speak of the
Bible as the final authority in all matters of religion. This makes
the power of ultimacy out of God's free hands and posits it in a
form that men can manipulate and guarantee, and the biblical
name for such a practice is the sin of idolatry!"
(Page 29): "This is why the mistakes and errors and conflicting
opinions of the biblical record do not invalidate it for me but
rather testify to its authenticity."

(Page 30): "Is the Bible, then, a human book? By all means, the
answer is an affirmative one."

* Chapter 5, Words, Parables, And Pictures, Scott L. Tatum, pastor,
Broadmore Baptist, Shreveport, LA.

(Page 51): "The New Testament is a collection of the writings of
human beings. In spiritual experience, these writings have been
discovered to be divine."

(Page 53): "When Paul wrote letters to the people in whom he was
interested, he did not realize that later generations would regard
his writings as sacred Scripture. He was expressing himself as a
missionary friend, a gospel preacher, and a fellow human being. His
letters were very personal -- warmly human, like Jesus."

* Chapter 7, Stories That Teach, Wayne E. Ward, professor of
Christian
Theology, Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, KY.

His entire chapter seems to be establishing the thought that the
Bible records of creation, and the fall were stories.

(Page 79): Under subhead, "The Historical References in
These 'Stories' that Teach" the author says: "One more important
point should be considered
in these 'stories that teach,' especially these great stories of
creation, sin, and judgment in Genesis. They are clearly NOT
straight forward historical narratives like the records of the kings
of Judah and Israel, or even the accounts of the patriarchs, or the
Exodus, or the crucifixion of Jesus."

(Page 78): "Some people are determined to make the 'serpent' in
Genesis 3 a
literal snake . . . such interpreters insist on taking the tree of
knowledge of good and evil literally, and even spend pages debating
whether it was an apple, a pomegranate, or some other fruit.
Obviously, the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' is a moral name,
not an actual fruit tree." It should be obvious that this kind of
interpretation is modernistic to the core. Once you have explained
away the serpent and the tree, it is only one more step to explain
away Eve, the garden and the fall of man. This is exactly what many
do with this passage.

* Chapter 9. the Bible And Human Science, John M. Lewis, pastor,
First
Baptist Church, Raleigh, N.C.

(Page 96): "Many Bible students recognize that there are two
accounts of creation in Genesis. The first, from 1:1 to 2:4a,
appears to have been written later than the second, which is from
2:4b to 2:25. The older account in Genesis 2 is more primitive and
childlike in its concepts and
picturizations of God. Here man is created before any other living
creatures. But the stories were not given as a scientific account of
creation as such. If one tries to take these accounts as literal
scientific truth he does violence to the real intent of the Bible
itself. If one attempts this, which account is to be taken as
scientifically accurate, Genesis 1 or 2? The order is exactly
opposite in each. Both cannot be
scientifically accurate at the same time."


* Chapter 13, What The Bible Means To Me, Brooks Hays, former
President of Southern Baptist Convention, former U.S. Congressman
from the state of Arkansas.
(Page 131): "To avoid being guilty of ignoring my own exhortations
against uncritical treatment of the Bible, I must say at the outset
that I do not accept all of the Bible as literally true. (I do not
believe, for example, that God ever ordered the slaughter of one's
enemies.) I do accept it as the Christian's authority for faith and
conduct. It is part, but not the whole, of God's revelation of His
will . . . " (Page 134): On this page Mr.
Hays says of "literalists who claim 'verbal inerrancy' of the
writings . . . this is antibiblical -- for it tends to make an idol
of printed pages. Bibliolatry is as dangerous as any other form of
idolatry.""

3) Human desire to make the Bible conform to one's way of thinking.

Bill Mounce had requested Grudem and CBMW to remove his name from
the list of scholars who had signed the early "Statement of Concern"
and the CBMW had not done that in a timely manner.
6 weeks after his initial request, CBMW has removed his name
from the list of scholars who signed the "Statement of Concern."
Bill  made his request after listening to the three hour panel
discussion of the issues at ETS last November in Toronto. As a
result of discussion, he decided that even though he does not like
the TNIV (Today's New International Version), the Statements use of
words like "troubling ... inaccuracies ... distortions" carried
connotations he was not
comfortable with. He also told me that his initial opposition to the
TNIV was more an opposition to functional equivalence than its
handling of gender language.

This is the STATEMENT:
"Statement of Concern about the TNIV Bible

Recently, the International Bible Society (IBS) and Zondervan
Publishing announced their joint decision to publish a new
translation of the Bible, known as Today's New International Version
(TNIV). The TNIV makes significant changes in the gender language
that is in the NIV. The TNIV raises more concern in this regard than
previous Bible versions because, riding on the reputation of the
NIV, the TNIV may vie for a place as the church's commonly accepted
Bible. We believe that any commonly accepted Bible of the church
should be more faithful to the language of the original.

We acknowledge that Bible scholars sometimes disagree about
translation methods and about which English words best translate the
original languages. We also agree that it is appropriate to use
gender-neutral expressions where the original language does not
include any male or female meaning. However, we believe the TNIV has
gone beyond acceptable translation standards in several important
respects:

The TNIV translation often changes masculine, third person, singular
pronouns (he, his and him) to plural gender-neutral pronouns. For
example, in Revelation 3:20, the words of Jesus have been changed
from "I will come in and eat with him, and he with me" to "I will
come in and eat with them, and they with me." Jesus could have used
plural pronouns when He spoke these words, but He chose not to. (The
original Greek pronouns are singular.) In hundreds of such changes,
the TNIV obscures any possible significance the inspired singular
may have, such as individual responsibility or an individual
relationship with Christ.
 
The TNIV translation obscures many biblical references
to "father," "son," "brother," and "man." For example, in Hebrews
12:7, the NIV says "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating
you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?" But the
TNIV translates Hebrews 12:7, "Endure hardship as discipline; God is
treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined
by their parents?" The reference to God as Father is lost. In
numerous other verses male-oriented meanings that are present in the
original language are lost in the TNIV.
 
The TNIV translation inserts English words into the text whose
meaning does not appear in the original languages. For example, in
Luke 17:3, the translators changed "If your brother sins, rebuke
him" to "If any brother or sister sins against you, rebuke the
offender." The problem is, the word "sister" is not found in the
original language, nor is "against you," nor is 'offender.'
 
Thus, in hundreds of verses, the TNIV changes language with
masculine meaning in the original Greek to something more generic.
It does this in many ways, such as changing

"father" (singular) to "parents";
 
"son" (singular) to "child" or "children";
 
"brother" (singular) to "someone" or "brother or sister,"
and "brothers" (plural) to "believers";
 
"man" (singular, when referring to the human race) to "mere mortals"
or "those" or "people";
 
"men" (plural, when referring to male persons) to "people"
or "believers" or "friends" or "humans";
 
"he/him/his" to "they/them/their" or "you/your" or "we/us/our"; and
 
switching hundreds of whole sentences from singular to plural.

We wonder how the TNIV translators can be sure that this masculine
language in God's very words does not carry meaning that God wants
us to see.

Gender problems are not the only serious problems with the TNIV. For
example: How do the TNIV translators know that changing "Jews"
to "Jewish leaders," for example in Acts 13:50 and 21:11, does not
make a false claim, and obscure a possible corporate meaning? How do
they know that changing "saints" to "those" in Acts 9:13 or
to "believers" in Acts 9:32 or to "God's people" in Romans 8:27 does
not sacrifice precious connotations of holiness which the Greek word
carries? To justify translating "saints" as "believers" because it
refers to believers is like justifying translating "sweetheart"
as "wife" because that's who it refers to.

Because of these and other misgivings, we cannot endorse the TNIV as
sufficiently trustworthy to commend to the church. We do not believe
it is a translation suitable for use as a normal preaching and
teaching text of the church or for a common memorizing, study, and
reading Bible of the Christian community."

4) Incorrectly assigning infallibility to any translator.
It would be absurd to call any translation "inerrant". (Incapable of
erring; infallible. Containing no errors.) That would clearly imply
divine inspired guidance.
One (flawed) way to argue against something is to exaggerate what
you're arguing against and then criticize the exaggerated version.
This appears to have happened here. 

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]   THE RARE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES - Antidesma 


[1]       SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 995A]

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,  And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.    And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,  Luke 3:21 – 23

Not long after his baptism, Jesus launched a work that was to reach global proportions as shown at Luke 4:14 – 15, “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.    And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.” [AV].    After his death, his apostles took the lead in the expansion of this preaching work. (Acts 5:42; 6:7) Some Christians, such as Philip, served as evangelizers and missionaries in Palestine. (Acts 8:5, 40; 21:8) Paul and others traveled farther afield. (Acts 13:2-4; 14:26; 2 Cor. 1:19) Some—for example, Silvanus (Silas), Mark, and Luke—also served as copyists or writers. (1 Pet. 5:12) Christian sisters worked along with these faithful brothers. (Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:1, 2) Their exciting experiences help to make the Christian Greek Scriptures a thrill to read and demonstrate that Jehovah remembers his servants favorably.   


[2]   Aristotelia chilensis - Maqui Berry

Aristotelia chilensis, known as maqui or Chilean wineberry, is a tree species in the Elaeocarpaceae family native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rainforests of Chile and adjacent regions of southern Argentina. Limited numbers of these trees are cultivated in gardens for their small fruits, known as maqui berries. Most of the fruits commercially marketed come from the wild.

Description   
A. chilensis is a small dioecious evergreen tree that can reach 4 to 5 metres (13 to 16 ft) in height. Its divided trunk has a smooth bark. Its branches are abundant, thin and flexible. Its leaves are simple, opposite, hanging, oval-lanceolate, naked and coriaceous, with serrated edges. The leaf venation is highly visible, and the leaf stalk is a strong red color.
In the beginning of spring, the tree sheds the old cohort, which is used as a carbohydrate source to form the new leaves and flowers.[2]

Flowers and berries   
When A. chilensis flowers at the end of spring, the white flowers are unisexual and small, but they eventually yield a small edible fruit. The small purple-black berries that form are approximately 4 to 6 millimetres (0.16 to 0.24 in) in diameter and contain 4 to 8 angled seeds. A seven-year-old tree can produce up to 10 kilograms (22 lb) of berries per year. With fruit that tastes similar to blackberries, the species is known as the Chilean wineberry, and locally in Spanish as maqui or maque.

Distribution   
A. chilensis is native to Chile and Argentina near the southwest coast of South America.[1] It is found naturally in Chilean rainforests. Its native area includes the Coquimbo and Aysén regions of Chile, and is 170,000 hectares (420,000 acres) in total.[3]

Ecology   
Maqui berries are a favored food for birds at the end of summer. Deforestation of the Valdivian temperate rainforests in Chile suppresses seed dispersal by birds and leads to inbreeding depression.[4]

Harvesting and cultivation   
The berries of A. chilensis are collected from wild plants from December to March of each year by families, mainly Mapuche, who collect their harvest near the Andes Mountains. The harvesting process involves collecting the side branches of trees, shaking them to separate the berries and leaves from the branches, and then employing a mechanical process to separate the berries from the leaves.
The stored fruits are sold in local markets, with prices ranging from $6.5 to $15 per kilogram ($2.9 to $6.8/lb). The average area yield is about 220 kilograms (490 lb) per hectare annually, with an estimated yearly total of only 90 short tons (180,000 lb),[citation needed] due to remote access and difficulty for transportation.

A. chilensis is planted in home gardens and is not grown on an orchard scale. Most of the fruits on the market come from the wild. Maqui is frost sensitive and fairly tolerant of maritime exposure. It prefers a well-drained soil in full sun, but with some protection against cold, drying winds. The soil should be slightly acidic with moderate fertility.[5]
A. chilensis can be planted in USDA zones 8 to 12. It is cultivated in Spain, and in milder, moister areas of Britain, where winter frosts reduce plant stock, thereby stimulating growth of more shoots in spring.[6]

Propagation   
Seeds of A. chilensis germinate without cold stratification. In zones with the possibility of frost, it is recommended to sow in spring in a greenhouse. If they have grown enough, by autumn, the new plants can be planted into individual pots . The potted plants should stay in the greenhouse for the first winter.
The following year, after the last expected frost in spring, the plants can be planted out into their final positions. In their first winter outdoors, some type of frost protection is required.[7] For further propagation, vegetal reproduction is possible: cuttings of wood with a length of 15 to 30 centimetres (5.9 to 11.8 in) can be planted into pots. These cuttings normally root, and can be planted out in the following spring.[8]
Anthocyanin content   
Only limited polyphenol research has been completed on the maqui berry, which showed its anthocyanin content to include eight glucoside pigments of delphinidin and cyanidin, with the principal anthocyanin being delphinidin 3-sambubioside-5-glucoside (34% of total anthocyanins).[9][10] The average total anthocyanin content was 138 milligrams (2.13 gr) per 100 grams (3.5 oz) of fresh fruit, or 212 milligrams (3.27 gr) per 100 grams (3.5 oz) of dry fruit,[10] ranking maqui berries low among darkly pigmented fruits for anthocyanin content (see table at anthocyanins). One study found that anthocyanins are also present in maqui leaves.[11]

References   
    1. ^ Jump up to:a b "Aristotelia chilensis (Molina) Stuntz". Plants of the World online. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Retrieved 2018-06-21.
    2.  Prado, C. & Damascos, M. (2001). Gas exchange and leaf specific mass of different foliar cohorts of the wintergreen shrub Aristotelia chilensis (Mol.) stuntz (Eleocarpaceae) fifteen days before the flowering and the fall of the old cohort. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, 44(3), 277-282.
    3.  Nahuelhual L.; Carmona A.; Lara A.; Echeverría C.; González M. E. (2012). "Land-cover change to forest plantations: Proximate causes and implications for the landscape in south-central Chile". Landscape and Urban Planning. 107 (1): 12–20. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.04.006.
    4.  Valdivia, C. & Simonetti, J. (2006). Decreased frugivory and seed germination rate do not reduce seedling recruitment rates of Aristotelia chilensis in a fragmented forest. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(6), 1593-1602.
    5.  Huxley, A. (1992). The New RHS Dictionary of Gardening.
    6.  Grey-Wilson, C., & Matthews, V. (1983). Gardening on Walls. London.
    7.  Bean W. 1981. Trees and Shrubs Hardy in Great Britain. Vol 1 - 4 and Supplement.
    8.  Chittenden, F. (1951) RHS Dictionary of Plants plus Supplement. Oxford University Press.
    9.  Fredes C, Yousef GG, Robert P, Grace MH, Lila MA, Gómez M, Gebauer M, Montenegro G (2014). "Anthocyanin profiling of wild maqui berries (Aristotelia chilensis [Mol.] Stuntz) from different geographical regions in Chile". J Sci Food Agric. 94 (13): 2639–48. doi:10.1002/jsfa.6602. PMID 24497378.
    10. ^ Jump up to:a b Escribano-Bailón MT, Alcalde-Eon C, Muñoz O, et al. (2006). "Anthocyanins in berries of Maqui (Aristotelia chilensis (Mol.) Stuntz)". Phytochem Anal. 17 (1: Jan-Feb): 8–14. doi:10.1002/pca.872. PMID 16454470.
    11.  Suwalsky M, Vargas P, Avello M, et al. (Nov 2008). "Human erythrocytes are affected in vitro by flavonoids of Aristotelia chilensis (Maqui) leaves". Int J Pharm. 363 (1–2): 85–90. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2008.07.005. PMID 18687390.  [source - retrieved from   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelia_chilensis   on 10/8/2018]

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT WWW.JW.ORG