Religious Truths » Scripture of the Day

iris89 · 1/16/2020 6:15 pm

COMBINATION OF THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND THE RARE FRUIT TREES AND VEGETABLES - MACADAMIA INTEGRIFOLIA With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [121B]

So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. Hebrews 13:6, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

We should strive to develop a positive attitude, and to show brotherly love per 1 Thessalonians 5:14 – 15, [AV] “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. 15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.” Doing so will help us survive the approaching conclusion of the end times per Luke 21:25 – 28, [AV] “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”

FOR AN ONLINE BIBLE STUDY WHERE YOU CAN LEARN FOR FREE:

Who Jehovah, Jesus, and the angles are,

How the Bible can help a person,

Why God created humans,

Why suffering and evil exist.

How Jehovah intends to end suffering and death,

About the coming resurection,

How failed human governments will be replaced by God’s Kingdom

GO TO https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/

[2] THE RARE FRUIT TREES AND VEGETABLES - Macadamia integrifolia

Here is a Commentary on Bountiful Trees and Vegetables God (YHWH) has provided for mankind, specifically the Macadamia integrifolia, Maiden and Betche, is also known as the Queensland Nut, Australian Nut, and the smooth-shelled macadamia. It is an evergreen tree which, if grown in an isolated area, will reach a height of 60 feet and grow a canopy 50 feet wide. The petioled leaves grow in whorls of three and are coarsely dentate when young and when mature, they are stiff, obovate and vary from a few inches to 12 inches long, have a round apex and may have from 1 to 12 teeth on each side. The inflorescence is a 12-inch-long raceme which may contain from 100 to 300 flowers. The fruit is a very round drupe enclosed in a green pericarp (husk) up to 1¼" in diameter, which usually does not dehisce on the tree.

The family it belongs to, the Proteaceae family has about 55 genera and approximately 1200 species. It is one of the most consistent families in terms of consistent characteristics. Most of the species have a 4-parted perianth, showy racemes, 4 stamens and the fruit is usually a nut. The Macadamia genus all have whorled leaves, small bisexual flowers and a fruit which is a hard, round drupe or nut.

CULTIVARS
As the two main species, M. tetraphylla and M. integrifolia hybridize freely, a large number of cultivars have been developed, most of which have been given Hawaiian names such as Ikaika, Kakea, Mauka, Makai, Keaau, Keauhou, etc. Other cultivars are Elimbah, Sewell and Probert 2. Some of the many cultivars have such desirable qualities as being immune to anthracnose, wind-resistant, yielding a larger crop, etc., but for each positive feature, there are negative ones as well. Because of the ease with which these species can be hybridized and with the advances being made in genetic engineering, it is likely that a near-perfect cultivar will eventually be developed.
PROPAGATION
Seeds can be planted in order to obtain rootstock for grafting. To do this, the fruit should be collected within a few days of falling, put in a tray and dried in the shade where there is good air circulation. When the husk splits open, the nut can be removed and planted in a sterile medium, placing the nut so that the ventral suture, the slight 'crease' that runs from the hilum to the micropyle, is on its side. If you soak the seeds for a few days prior to planting, germination, which is normally 30 to 60 days, will be speeded up somewhat.
Grafting onto seedlings that are at least two years old is practiced. Such a grafted tree will take at least four more years before it bears fruit. The grafting is straightforward: the scions should be between ½ to ¾" in diameter and be taken from branches that had been girdled six to eight weeks previously. The graft itself can be either a side-wedge or a side veneer.
Air layering is much more feasible, as you can get fruit before three years. There is a physical advantage too in that the cutting obtained from the air layer can be planted deeper and additional roots will develop near the surface.
CULTIVATION
Except for two things, the macadamia is a most tolerant tree. It will continue to thrive whether there is too much or too little water, and in almost any kind of soil. What it can't stand is excessive winds or really long periods of hot, dry weather; neither condition is usual in most of our subtropical climates. Once it is established, it will tolerate temperatures down to 25°F (-3.5°C). In Hawaii there are commercial plantings as high as 2500 (800 M) and the trees are known to be productive up to 3600 feet (1200 m). In an article written for the CRFG, B.D. Spooner notes, what Mr. Arkin has observed here in South Florida, that climate is more important than soil in the growing of this tree. Whereas any type of soil seems to do, hot, dry conditions can severely limit growth and production.
The use of nutrients is something that needs to be determined by the grove owner, as the requirements will differ with the kind of soil. Generalized remarks on this subject are contradictory, though there is some agreement that nutrients during the first year can be harmful and any subsequent feeding that is necessary should be moderate.
Windbreaks are recommended, especially when the trees are young, and in the event of a very severe freeze, protective measures such as wrapping and insulating the trunks of very young trees should be taken.
In California, trees are planted 18' apart; in Hawaii from 30 to 36' apart. Harvesting, which can be done over a period of several months, is done from the ground. Various methods have been devised to simplify this process and 'catch' the nuts before they are mixed with fallen leaves and other debris, but none are very efficient. It is a job that simply must be done every day. The home grower should remove the husks and put the nuts in a tray with a screen bottom and let them dry out of the sun for two or three weeks. The nuts are dry when they are loose in their shell. The nuts can then be stored in plastic bags to prevent them from absorbing moisture, until they are ready to be used. For the commercial processing of the nuts, see the chapter on macadamias in Rosengarten's book listed below. (source - retrieved from http://rfcarchives.org.au/Next/Fruits/Nuts/Macadamia7-91.htm on 1/20/2013)
In Genesis 1:11-13, "And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (American Standard Version, ASV)[for more details, go to www.jw.org].

NUTRITIONAL VALUE
The kernels of M. integrifolia contain 72% oil and 4% sugar; those of M. tetraphylla have a lower percentage of oil: 67.5 - 72% and a higher percentage of sugar: 6 to 8%. The nuts, which are still a gourmet item because of their price and scarcity, can be eaten raw, roasted or they are used as ingredients in cakes, confections and as part of such main dishes as Nutted Veal Steaks and Chicken Kiev Macadamia.
As the macadamias are self-pollinating, a backyard grower can put in a single tree to "...enjoy this rare delight, a very beautiful, delicate, white and lightly-aromatic bloom comes on early in spring. Six or seven months after bloom, one will harvest a fine cluster of fresh nuts." . (source - retrieved from http://rfcarchives.org.au/Next/Fruits/Nuts/Macadamia7-91.htm on 1/20/2013)

The main driving force of water uptake and transport into a plant is transpiration of water from leaves through specialized openings called stomata. Heat from the sun causes the water to evaporate, setting this ‘water chain’ in motion. The evaporation creates a negative water vapor pressure. Water is pulled into the leaf to replace the water that has transpired from the leaf. This pulling of water, or tension, occurs in the xylem of the leaf. Since the xylem is a continuous water column that extends from the leaf to the roots, this negative water pressure extends into the roots and results in water uptake from the soil. [adapted from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=follow-up-how-do-trees-ca ]

Clearly this clever water transport system shows a superior intelligence of the Creator (YHWH).

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

iris89 · 1/22/2020 7:04 am

COMBINATION OF [1] THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] DISCOURSE ON TRADITIONS THAT TRANSGRESS THE WORD OF GOD. With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [123B]

And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: 13 And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die. Isaiah 22:12 – 13, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

And interesting scripture that many wrestle with as respect meaning. However, it is part of a series of scriptures pointing to the execution of Jesus (Yeshua), and his resurrection three days later. And 1 Corinthians 15:31 – 32, [AV] which says, “I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.” Where the Apostle Paul was emphasizing the fact that if the Son of God had not risen on the third day, his faith was in vain. He went on to say at 1 Corinthians 15:12 – 15, [AV] “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” Clearly showing his faith was strong as Jesus (Yeshua) had indeed risen from the dead, and this is once more testified to at 1 Corinthians 15:3 – 4, [AV] “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

[2] DISCOURSE ON TRADITIONS THAT TRANSGRESS THE WORD OF GOD:

FIRST, There are two aspects with respect tradition and they are as follows:

(1) Tradition is not necessarily wrong, [b]It is only wrong if it contradicts what is written in God's (YHWH's) word the Bible.

(2) Tradition that contradicts the word of God (YHWH) is from the Devil and is part of what is spoken of at 2 Corinthians 4:4, "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn [upon them]." (American Standard Version; ASV)

SECOND, Let's look at the facts from God's (YHWH's) word the Bible instead of some eloquent but misleading writing by some organization which often try to rationalize error:

(1) First, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ clearly shows that when traditions transgress the word of God (YHWH) they are clearly wrong and the work of Satan the Devil per 2 Corinthians 4:4, as follows from Matthew 15:1-9, "Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given [to God]; 6 he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men." (ASV). Clearly, Jesus (Yeshua) unequivocally shows that traditions that transgress the word of God (YHWH) are wrong.

(2) Second, at Matthew 7:6-13, "And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men. 8 Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. 9 And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death: 11 but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given [to God]; 12 ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother; 13 making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do." (ASV). Clearly, once more Jesus (Yeshua) unequivocally shows that traditions that transgress the word of God (YHWH) are just plain wrong and against the word of God (YHWH).

(3) Third, Colossians 2:4-8, "This I say, that no one may delude you with persuasiveness of speech. 5 For though I am absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. 6 As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, [so] walk in him, 7 rooted and builded up in him, and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:" (ASV). Once more tradition that transgresses the word of God (YHWH) is clearly shown as just plain wrong.

So as can clearly be seen, all tradition that transgress the word of God (YHWH) regardless of its source is just plain wrong and against the word of God (YHWH). It does not matter from what source it eminates or how eloquent its rationalization sounds it is still just plain wrong and a work of Satan the Devil per 2 Corinthians 4:4 previously quoted. Tradition that transgress the word of God (YHWH) is nothing but seeds that fall on rocky ground warned against at Luke 8:4- "And when a great multitude came together, and they of every city resorted unto him, he spake by a parable: 5 The sower went forth to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden under foot, and the birds of the heaven devoured it. 6 And other fell on the rock; and as soon as it grew, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7 And other fell amidst the thorns; and the thorns grew with it, and choked it. 8 And other fell into the good ground, and grew, and brought forth fruit a hundredfold. As he said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. 9 And his disciples asked him what this parable might be. 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to the rest in parables; that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. 11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 And those by the way side are they that have heard; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved. 13 And those on the rock [are] they who, when they have heard, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. 14 And that which fell among the thorns, these are they that have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of [this] life, and bring no fruit to perfection. 15 And that in the good ground, these are such as in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, hold it fast, and bring forth fruit with patience. 16 And no man, when he hath lighted a lamp, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but putteth it on a stand, that they that enter in may see the light. 17 For nothing is hid, that shall not be made manifest; nor [anything] secret, that shall not be known and come to light. 18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he thinketh he hath." (ASV); and tradition that transgresses the word of God (YHWH) is like the tares of Matthew 13:24-43, "Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field: 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares? 28 And he said unto them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he saith, Nay; lest haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn. 31 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: 32 which indeed is less than all seeds; but when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the heaven come and lodge in the branches thereof. 33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened. 34 All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable spake he nothing unto them: 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world. 36 Then he left the multitudes, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 37 And he answered and said, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil [one]; 39 and the enemy that sowed them is the devil: and the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with fire; so shall it be in the end of the world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, 42 and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears, let him hear." (ASV), here Jesus (Yeshua) Christ clearly refers to the source of these tares, traditions that transgress the word of God (YHWH) as the Devil.

So what should all true Christians do. They should reject ALL tradition that TRANSGRESSES THE WORD OF GOD (YHWH) regardless of its source or how eloquently it is rationalized and/or presented in keeping with Titus 2:1, "But speak thou the things which befit the sound doctrine:" (ASV).

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

iris89 · 1/23/2020 7:35 pm

COMBINATION OF [1] THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] FALSE RELIGION UNDER CONTROL OF THE GOD OF THIS SYSTEM, SATAN, IS RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR ALL THE VIOLENCE ON EARTH.. With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [124B]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Yes, true faith is based on scriptural realities; to wit, all the promises that Almighty God (YHWH) had made to Abraham ALL came true. It is important that we know these scriptural realities are real unlike the so called realities of many that are nothing more than wishful thinking. AS Hebrews 6:19, [AV] shows, “Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;” According to 1 Thessalonians 5:6, [AV] “Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.”

[2] FALSE RELIGION UNDER CONTROL OF THE GOD OF THIS SYSTEM, SATAN, IS RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR ALL THE VIOLENCE ON EARTH.

AS Almighty God’s (YHWH’s) states at 1 John 5:19, “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.” [authorized King James Bible; AV]

LET’S LOOK AT THE FACTS:

FIRST, Almost all wars on earth have an underlying false religion cause. Some were so brazen caused by false religion as to be called Thirty Year War of Religion or War of Ethnic Cleansing. In fact the lust for violence that many members of Islam have that is responsible for 90 to 95% of the religiously inspired violence in the world today per the Weekender Australia. [source - The Weekend Australian, November 26-27, 2005 CE].

SECOND, Genuine true followers of the Prince of Peace, Jesus (Yeshua), love peace; whereas, those of false religions to a greater and/or lesser degree seek chaos. Proof of this reality are constantly in the news world wide with headlines such as Muslims kill Christians, Buddhist kill Muslims, etc., and in history such as the Inquisitions of the Catholic Church and the genocides of between 80 and 100 million Hindus and Buddhist by Muslims in greater India.

THIRD, Today in the world news, it is clear that where ever members of Islam go, violence quickly follows with the most recent cases being in Belgium, San Bernardino (California), and France. No one needs this violence often followed by gang rapes by the same group.

FOURTH, Members of false religion always want special privileges for themselves over others, just racism and bigotry, for themselves. In fact one of these actually said the following, “…every Muslim child should be in a state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. I would like to see Muslim children developing Cultural, linguistic and spiritual identities so that they could keep themselves away from western barbarity of anti-social behavior,” [source – Iftikhar of The London School of Islamics Trust].

FIFTH, Usually members of these violent false religious groups claim they pay taxes like everyone else, and this is usually true. HOWEVER, they fail to mention that they cost whatever country they are in more than they pay in taxes, plus many lives. How so, for security, repairing damage, chaos caused, etc.

SIXTH, Yes, many immigrants are good for a country in most cases, but NOT those who cause chaos and/or applaud it. True, most members of false religions are not violent, but only the radicalized ones. HOWEVER, those labeled moderates often applaud it. Witness, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York and the murder of 3,000 individuals, only a small group actually committed the act, but many members of the false religion called moderates vigorously applauded it in many cities around the world where this false religion were the majority.

SEVEN, Many cry for this chaos and put forth various so called solutions such as more security. Of course this will NOT work since as long as the chaos creating religion is in an area there will be chaos just as when an apple starts to rot, the remainder can only be saved by complete removal of the rot. Politicians do NOT have the will to remove the chaos creating group from their country; so the only REAL solution is what is prayed for at Matthew 6:9 – 10, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” It behooves all right thinking ones to look forward to being part of the Almighty God’s (YHWH’s) Kingdom , and in order to do this they must become genuine followers of His son, the Prince of Peace, Jesus (Yeshua).
LEARN MORE AT WWW.JW.ORG

ADDENDUM – LATE ARRIVING DATA:

More truth from the world news on so called moderates, mentioned in item SIXTH, above, “…Muslim communities that have helped shield jihadis, and security services have had persistent problems conducting effective counterterrorism operations.” [source – New York Times article, ‘World leaders react with horror and issue calls or solidarity,’ written by Allsas j. Rubin, Auelien Breeden, and Anita Raghaven]

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

iris89 · 1/25/2020 1:29 pm

COMBINATION OF THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND THE RARE FRUIT TREES AND VEGETABLES - Madras Thorn With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [125B]

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. 11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Luke 8:10 – 11, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Jesus (Yeshua) went on to say at Luke 8:12 – 15, [AV] “Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. 14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. 15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.” Yes, we should according to Matthew 6:33, [AV] “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

FOR AN ONLINE BIBLE STUDY WHERE YOU CAN LEARN FOR FREE:

Who Jehovah, Jesus, and the angles are,

How the Bible can help a person,

Why God created humans,

Why suffering and evil exist.

How Jehovah intends to end suffering and death,

About the coming resurection,

How failed human governments will be replaced by God’s Kingdom

GO TO https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/

[2] THE RARE FRUIT TREES AND VEGETABLES - Madras Thorn

Here is a Commentary on Bountiful Trees and Vegetables God (YHWH) has provided for mankind, specifically the Madras Thorn Pithecellobium dulce

A small to medium-sized tree native to tropical America between southeastern Mexico and Peru, but widely cultivated elsewhere in tropical regions. It produces a spiny trunk, small leaves and small, white flowers, followed by curiously curled, red, edible and sweet seed pods with small, black seeds. Pithecellobium dulce makes a pretty ornamental for tropical regions. Zone 10 and higher outside. (source - retrieved from http://www.seedman.com/fruit.htm on //2013)

Pithecellobium dulce is a species of flowering plant in the pea family, Fabaceae, that is native to Mexico, Central America, and northern South America.[2] It is introduced and extensively naturalised in the Caribbean, Florida, Guam and Southeast Asia like Philippines. It is considered an invasive species in Hawaii.

It is known by the name "Madras thorn", but it is not native to Madras. The name "Manila tamarind" is misleading, since it is neither closely related to tamarind, nor native to Manila. It is called "seema chintakaya" in Telugu. The name "monkeypod" is more commonly used for the rain tree (Albizia saman). Other names include blackbead, sweet Inga,[2] cuauhmochitl (Nahuatl), guamúchil / cuamúchil / huamúchil (Mexico, Spanish), guamá americano (Puerto Rico) Makham thet Thai:

P. dulce is a tree that reaches a height of about 10 to 15 m (33 to 49 ft). Its trunk is spiny and its leaves are bipinnate. Each pinna has a single pair of ovate-oblong leaflets that are about 2 to 4 m (6.6 to 13 ft) long. The flowers are greenish-white, fragrant, sessile and reach about 12 cm (4.7 in) in length, though appear shorter due to coiling. The flowers produce a pod with an edible pulp. The seeds are black.

The seeds are dispersed via birds that feed on the sweet pod. It is drought resistant and can survive in dry lands from sea level to an elevation of 300 m (980 ft), making it suitable for cultivation as a street tree.

Uses
As food
The seed pods contain a sweet pulp that can be eaten raw or prepared as a smoothie.

Ecology
P. dulce is a host plant for the caterpillars of the red-bordered pixie (Melanis pixe), three-spot grass yellow (Eurema_blanda) and many other moths.[4]

Synonyms
This plant is known under numerous junior synonyms:[5]
* Acacia obliquifolia M.Martens & Galeotti
* Albizia dulcis (Roxb.) F.Muell.
* Feuilleea dulcis (Roxb.) Kuntze
* Inga camatchili Perr.
* Inga dulcis (Roxb.) Willd.
* Inga javana DC.
* Inga javanica DC.
* Inga lanceolata sensu Blanco
Inga lanceolata Willd. is Pithecellobium lanceolatum
* Inga leucantha C.Presl
* Inga pungens Willd.
* Mimosa dulcis Roxb.
* Mimosa edulis Gagnep.
* Mimosa pungens (Willd.) Poir.
* Mimosa unguis-cati Blanco
Mimosa unguis-cati L. is Pithecellobium unguis-cati
* Pithecellobium littorale Record
* Pithecollobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth. (lapsus)

References
1. ^ "Pithecellobium dulce - (Roxb.) Benth. Guama Americano". NatureServe Explorer. NatureServe. Retrieved 2010-09-19.
2. ^ a b c "Taxon: Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth.". Germplasm Resources Information Network. United States Department of Agriculture. 1994-08-23. Retrieved 2010-03-29.
3. ^ Grandtner, Miroslav M. (2005). Elsevier's Dictionary of Trees: With Names in Latin, English, French, Spanish and Other Languages 1. Elsevier. pp. 670–671. ISBN 978-0-444-51784-5.
4. ^ "Red-bordered Pixie Melanis pixe (Boisduval, 1836)". Butterflies and Moths of North America. Retrieved 2010-09-19.
5. ^ INTERNATIONAL LEGUME DATABASE & INFORMATION SERVICE (ILDIS) (2005): Pithecellobium dulce. Version 10.01, November 2005. Retrieved 2008-MAR-30. (source - retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pithecellobium_dulce on //2013)

In Genesis 1:11-13, "And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (American Standard Version, ASV)[for more details, go to www.jw.org].

View plant and fruit (bean) at, https://www.google.com/search?q=Madras+Thorn+Pithecellobium+dulce&hl=en&client=firefox&hs=Mop&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=bYhcUf_lA-aa0QGXk4CYBg&ved=0CEAQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=854

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

iris89 · 1/27/2020 1:39 pm

COMBINATION OF [1] THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE COMPARED TO REAL ONES IN THE QURAN AND THE BOOK OF MORMAN. With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [126B]

Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Acts 2:6 – 12, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

What had occurred? Almighty God’S (YHWH’S) Holy Spirit was poured out on them as testified to at Acts 2:2 – 4, [AV] “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” His active force, the Holy Spirit, had caused all here gathered to speak in foreign tongues to enable people from all lands gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost to gain understanding of divine things. This was In fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, at Joel 2:28 – 32, [AV] “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. 30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. 32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.” Yes, this prophecy had been fulfilled.

[2] APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE COMPARED TO REAL ONES IN THE QURAN AND THE BOOK OF MORMAN:

It is high time that some start to realize that there are only apparent contradictions in the Bible, but when examined closely we find that these are all due to failure to comprehend what is being said, failure to understand the writing styles of the time the item was written, failure to understand the sentence construction of the ancient language, errors in translation, and biases on the part of the translator.

LET'S LOOK AT ONE EXAMPLE, MATTHEW 12:37-40 FROM WELL KNOWN:

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and {yet} no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (New American Standard Bible; NASB)

"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (New International Version; NIV)

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (New King James Bible; NKJB)

"Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (King James Version; KJV)

APPARENT CONTRADICTION AND ITS EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO MATTHEW 12:37-40:

Some see an error or contradiction in these scriptures related to the amount of time Jesus (Yeshua) was in the grave, but there is NONE. The true facts are:
"Yes, it does seem that way. We must remember that the Bible was written in other languages by cultures far removed from ours. Most alleged contradictions stem from a misunderstanding of certain terms and phrases. For example, Jesus predicted that He would be in the grave for "three days and three nights"(Matt.12:40). When we read the passion narratives, we see that He was crucified late Friday afternoon and that He rose from the dead, early on Sunday morning. It is impossible to get three days and three nights out of this, and I have seen many atheists refer to Jesus' prophecy as a "blatant error which completely destroys the credibility of the Bible."[source - I'd Like To Believe In Jesus, But...By Bob Siegel , Published by Campus Ambassador Press, A ministry of Mission To the Americas Wheaton, Illinois]

COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 12:37-40 EXPLAINING THESE SCRIPTURES:

For those who want a more detailed explanation, here is an exert from a well known commentary, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament:

Verse 37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Speech is one of the greatest endowments of humanity; and the greater the gift, the greater the sin of perverting it to unworthy purposes. It would be impossible to sum up all the sins of mankind in the area of sinful speech. It must appear even to casual thought of it that words, as used by millions, constitute the bulk of human shame and wickedness. James said, "If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also" (James 3:2). Beyond everything else, man should watch what he says. One's words can justify when they confess Christ, or teach the truth, or serve to make peace, bestow a blessing, or give encouragement; but on the other hand, when words condemn, cast a reflection, subvert the truth, utter profanity, vulgarity, hatred, or malice, or any one of a million other evil things - then such words bring the condemnation of those who speak them.

Verse 38
Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee.
This arrogant request came from a group who had already accused Jesus of being in league with the devil and who had already seen signs aplenty; but in this case, they were demanding a sign of their own choosing. Luke stated that they sought a "sign from heaven" (Luke 11:16). By that, they no doubt meant some spectacular wonder without moral value but which would appeal sensationally to a man's curiosity. Christ always rejected that type of sign, as, for example, when he refused to jump from the pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:6). In fact, there is more than a suggestion that the Pharisees' request for a sign was but a renewal of Satan's temptation of the Lord in the wilderness. Christ always refused to perform wonders for his enemies like Herod or the Pharisees. He did work miracles for the benefit of John's disciples (Luke 7:18-22), and raised Lazarus that the people might believe (John 11:42). For more on "a sign from heaven," see under Matthew 16:1.

Verse 39
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.
The "adulterous generation" refers not merely to the morals of the people but to the rejection of Israel's covenant with their God. Barnes wrote:
The relation of the Jews to God was represented as a marriage contract with God as the husband and the Jewish people as his wife (Isa. 57:3; Hosea 3:1; Ezek. 16:15). Hence, their apostasy and idolatry are often represented as adultery.
The "sign of the prophet Jonah" refers to the resurrection of Christ, the greatest and most wonderful miracle of all time. Jesus' announcement of this "sign" at that time was actually a prophecy of his death, burial and resurrection. The Old Testament had plainly indicated the Messiah would rise from the dead (Psalms 16:10); but, in keeping with his usual methods, Christ again laid claim to Messiahship, but in such terminology, and in such analogies, that his enemies would not see it, or if they did, would be unable to prove what he meant!

Verse 40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
The use of "whale" in this verse is in error; the Greek word is "sea-monster," as a glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin will show; not that there is any essential difference, for the Bible states that "God prepared" a great fish (Jonah 1:17). In the book of Jonah is related also how God "prepared" a gourd (Jonah 4:6), a worm (Jonah 4:7), and a sultry east wind (Jonah 4:8)! Why it should be considered for God a more difficult matter to prepare a great fish than any of those other "preparations" is surely a mystery!
Regarding the truth of the Jonah narrative, it appears absolutely incredible that Christ, one of the Godhead, would have made a mere folk tale the principal prophecy and sign of his resurrection from the dead. We here register a protest against those expositors who are so wise above their Saviour in casting a reflection of doubt upon this astounding incident from the Old Testament. From Jesus' reference to it here, it appears that the experience of Jonah was an authentic event which God "prepared" to be a prophecy of a still greater one, the resurrection of Christ.
The question of "three days and three nights," as signifying the time of our Lord's remaining in the tomb, is one of the most widely discussed issues in the New Testament. An overwhelming number of scholars hold the conviction that the expression is a Hebrew idiom referring to any part of three days and nights which included an entire day, the two nights on either side of it, and portions of the other two days. The present custom of accepting a month to be 28, 30, or 31 days is held to be similar to the Hebrew custom of so loosely determining "three days and three nights." The traditional view that Christ was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday draws its principal support from Matthew's word that Christ should be raised "the third day" (Matthew 16:21). This view asserts that if he was crucified on Thursday, and raised on Sunday, then he would have been raised on the fourth day.
In spite of the fact that a good case can be made out for the above explanation, some very respected students of God's word take another view. Torrey said, "There is absolutely nothing in favor of Friday crucifixion, but everything in Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion." F12 Torrey's argument is the following: (1) Christ was crucified the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42). (2) This does not necessarily mean the day before the ordinary sabbath, because the Jews always honored the day before the Passover (15th of Nisan) as a special "high" sabbath, no matter what day of the week it fell upon (Exodus 12:6; Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16-18). (3) The truly important question is, therefore, whether "day before the sabbath" refers to an ordinary Saturday, or the special "high" sabbath related to the Passover, and occurring on any day of the week, depending where the 15th of Nisan fell. (4) John's gospel plainly says it was "the preparation of the Passover" (John 19:14), and that it was "an high day" (John 19:31). These Scriptures plainly show that the ordinary sabbath was not meant. (5) Thus, Christ was crucified on the day before the "high day," or first day of Passover. Since the Passover (15th of Nisan) in the year 30 A.D. fell on Thursday, the "day before" would make it Wednesday on which Christ was crucified. (6) Scriptures supporting this view are: Christ said he would rise "after three days" (Mark 8:31). "After three days" he would rise again (Mark 9:31; 10:34). "This is now the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:31). Whatever one thinks of Torrey's argument, it must be admitted that it is supported by more Scriptures than the traditional view.
Warning: devout souls will not be troubled by this question; for, if it had been necessary to know the day of the week, the Lord would have revealed it. Furthermore, to resolve this question finally and dogmatically, it would be positively necessary to know the exact year of our Lord's passion; and THAT is not certainly known. Not even the exact year of his birth can be determined. It can never be known what day of the week was the 15th of Nisan until the overriding question of WHAT YEAR is fixed. This, of course, is the weakness of Torrey's position. He takes the year 30 A.D. as the base of his calculations.
The heart of the earth is a figurative expression for the grave which is also called "the lower parts of the earth" (Psalms 63:9; Ephesians 4:9).[source - Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, by Coffman, James Burton, Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.]

OTHER, SO CALLED HOLLY BOOKS, HOWEVER HAVE REAL CONTRADICTIONS, NOT JUST APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS:

Let's look at other so called Holy Books and see some real contradictions.

The eastern "scriptures" have no interest in history, because this is the world of illusion from which we are to be delivered. Ancient polytheistic religions likewise had no interest in history. Their gods acted only in myths, removed as far as possible from real history.

The Koran is almost entirely assertions of Allah. It has very little historical interface, and what there is contains clear inaccuracies.

Sura 26:55-60 says that the Israelites under Pharaoh were but "a scanty band" (in contrast to the multitude mentioned in Ex. 1:9) and that in leaving Egypt they forsook "their gardens and fountains and splendid dwellings" (in contrast to their slavery and hardship mentioned Ex. 1:11-14). This renders the whole motive for Israel's deliverance obscure.

Sura 5:119 reflects Muhammad's gross misunderstanding of the Trinity-that it is composed of the Father, Jesus and Mary.

The Book of Mormon makes many historical references, but it too is full of historical anachronisms and geographical inaccuracies.

1 Nephi 2:5-8 states that the river Laman emptied into the Red Sea. But there has never been any river that emptied into the Red Sea, either in historic or prehistoric times.

Alma 46:15 states that believers were called "Christians" back in 73 BC-fully seven decades before Jesus was even born![source - Xenos Christian Fellowship Christian Principles Unit 3: Provisions for Spiritual Growth]

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

iris89 · 2/01/2020 12:58 pm

COMBINATION OF [1] THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] MUSLIMS DON'T COMPREHEND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPECULATION VS. FACT. With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [127B]

For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Luke 22:18 – 20, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Here we see Jesus (Yeshua) getting ready to become the ransom sacrifice that will give all obedient men the opportunity to gain eternal life. Also, telling us in Luke 22:19 – 20 to keep doing this in remembrance of him. Why then, was it necessary? Its necessity was explained at Romans 5:12 – 19, [AV] “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

[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

iris89 · 2/03/2020 12:20 pm

COMBINATION OF [1] THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] TRINITY IS SHOWN IN BOTH THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN (KORAN) TO BE FALSE DOCTRINE. With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [128B]

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Ephesians 1:7, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Almighty God’s (YHWH’s)great gift to mankind was providing His only begotten son, Jesus (Yeshua), as a ransom as the means of lifting inherited sin, from Adam’s disobedience, off of all mankind. As Romans 5:10 – 11, [AV] says, “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.”

[2] TRINITY IS SHOWN IN BOTH THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN (KORAN) TO BE FALSE DOCTRINE:

INTRODUCTION:

Many so called Christians believe the pagan God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine of the Trinity. Now just what is this false doctrine that is condemned by the Bible and all knockoffs of the Bible? The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561, states, "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.....The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God...The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." [this is the Athanasian Creed quoted in the above mentioned Cyclopoedia].

THE FACTS SHOW IT IS A FALSE PAGAN DOCTRINE:

The bible clearly identifies God (YHWH) in John 4:24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (American Standard Version; ASV), and this in the singular, monotheistic, and not the plural, polytheistic. And 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 drives this point home, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; 6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." (ASV); which is a restatement of Psalms 83:18, "That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth" (ASV)..

Of course Trinitarians say that his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) is God (YHWH), but we all know that a son is not also his father as that is pure nonsense. Also, God (YHWH) has always existed, but the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) is the first of creation as stated at Colossians 1:12-15, "giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; 13 who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; 14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: 15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" (ASV). This is clearly shown by two other scriptures, John 5:26 clearly shows that the Father (YHWH) gave life to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua), "For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:" (ASV), and obviously he, Jesus (Yeshua) is here shown as a distinct spirit being separate from his Father (YHWH) and clearly being given life by his Father (YHWH). And John 6:57 shows that he clearly lives because of the Father (YHWH), "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me" (ASV)..

Even the Bible knockoff, the Quran (Koran) recognizes the fact that the Trinity is false doctrine and that Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT the same being as his Father (YHWH). At Sura 5:72 it states, "Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers." (Dr. Khalifa's authorized translation of the Quran in English; KATQ). And this same Bible knockoff at Sura 5:73 states with respect the Trinity, "Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is a third of a trinity. There is no god except the one god. Unless they refrain from saying this, those who disbelieve among them will incur a painful retribution." (KATQ).

NO TRINITY OF ANY KIND UNLESS YOU HAVE THREE OF A KIND:

Now many so called Christians point to John 1:1 to try and prove a Trinity as many biased translations say Jesus (Yeshua) is God (YHWH)such as the Authorized King James Bible (AV), "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." But even the translational constructs clearly show the bias and the error in translating John 1:1 this way. How so? Well as a starter, one can NOT be with someone and also be that someone, that is an impossibility. But getting past that, even if one is to accept this error there is yet another impossibility. What is it? To have a Trinity, one must have three of a kind, and no matter how you translate John 1:1 there is NO three of a kind, nor for that matter three of anything.

NOW THREE QUESTIONS FOR MYTH BELIEVING TRINITARIANS:

Now for those believing in the Trinity, here are three questions.

(1-question) Matthew says of the temptation of Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves), "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him." (Matthew 4:1-11, Authorized King James Bible, AV).

[b]This was clearly a test of loyalty, would Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH) keep his loyalty to Almighty God (YHWH) or not. However, if he were God as per the Trinity doctrine, how could God rebel against himself and be disloyal to himself? [Please explain]

2-question) Let's assume for a moment that Jesus were part of a Godhead, i.e., a Trinity, the ransom price would have been infinitely higher than what God's (YHWH's) own Law required per "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Exodus 21:23-25 AV) and "And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; 20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. 21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death." (Leviticus 24:19-21, AV).

Remember it was only a perfect human, Adam, who sinned in Eden, not God. Thus the ransom, to be equivalent or in line with God's (YHWH's) justice, had to be strictly an equivalent, i.e., a perfect human, "the last Adam." Therefore, when God sent Jesus to earth as the ransom, he made Jesus to be what would equate or satisfy justice, not an incarnation, nor a god-man, but a perfect man, " But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Hebrews 2:9 AV). How could any part of an almighty Godhead (Trinity) of Father (YHWH) , Son (Jesus), or holy spirit ever be lower than angels? [Please explain]

3-question) Supporters of the Trinity claim that in the case of Jesus, "only-begotten" is different from the dictionary definition of "begetting," that is "to procreate as the father," [Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary]. They claim that in Jesus case it means "a sort of only son relationship without the begetting; however, "Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words." Now does that sound logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him? [Please explain]

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT WWW.JW.ORG[/b]

iris89 · 2/05/2020 3:42 pm

COMBINATION OF THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND THE RARE FRUIT TREES AND VEGETABLES – Menteng With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [129B]

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Hebrews 2:9, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Here we see that Jesus (Yeshua) was to “taste death” for every man as his sacrifice, his perfect human life would serve as a ransom to lift inherited sin off of all obedient mankind – those striving to live their life in accordance with his Father’s Book of Guidance, the Bible. This was necessary as shown by Romans 5:12, [AV] “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans continues at 5:14 – 15, [AV] “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.”

FOR AN ONLINE BIBLE STUDY WHERE YOU CAN LEARN FOR FREE:

Who Jehovah, Jesus, and the angles are,

How the Bible can help a person,

Why God created humans,

Why suffering and evil exist.

How Jehovah intends to end suffering and death,

About the coming resurection,

How failed human governments will be replaced by God’s Kingdom

GO TO https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/

[2] THE RARE FRUIT TREES AND VEGETABLES - Menteng

Here is a Commentary on Bountiful Trees and Vegetables God (YHWH) has provided for mankind, specifically the Mafi or Menteng (Baccaurea racemosa). This Indonesian fruit is almost extinct.

It seems that amino-acid sweet meat is very, a little because ore than. The fruits of this banyakterdapat in Bogor and surrounding areas In Central Java,. menteng called mundung.Menteng, kepundung, or (to) mundung is like a tree fruit producer by Almighty God (YHWH) unto period that can be eaten in brief. fruit menteng similar to buahduku but feature stories trees in different taste is usually. [source - retrieved from http://bloggerizq.blogspot.com/2010/01/buah-buahan-asli-indonesia-yang-hampir.html and translated from Indonesian into English on 5/24/2013]
Baccaurea racemosa (Reinw. ex Bl.) Mull.Arg., in DC. Prodr. 15, 2 (1866)
Latin for 'raceme'.
Synonyms
Baccaurea bhaswatii Chakrab. & M.Gangop.
Baccaurea wallichii Hook.f.
Coccomelia racemosa Reinw. ex Bl.
Pierandia racemosa (Reinw. ex Bl.) Bl.
Pierardia racemosa (Reinw. ex Bl.) Miq.
Description
Understorey tree up to 20 m tall and 34 cm dbh. Stipules ca. 5 mm long. Leaves crowded at twig tips, alternate, simple, penni-veined, glabrous. Flowers ca. 3 mm diameter, white-yellow, placed in racemes. Fruits ca. 16 mm long, red, ramiflorous, dehiscent capsules, seeds with blue aril.
Ecology
In undisturbed mixed dipterocarp to sub-montane forests up to 1100 m altitude. Common on alluvial and dry (hillsides and ridges) sites. On sandy to clay soils. In secondary forests usually present as a pre-disturbance remnant tree.
Uses
Fruits are edible.
Distribution
Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra, Java, Lesser Sunda Islands, Borneo (Sarawak, Brunei, Sabah, West-, Central- and East-Kalimantan), Celebes, Moluccas.
Local names
Borneo Engkumi, Kayu masam, Kokonau, Kunau, Kunyi, Longkumo, Moho liox, Tunding undang, Umbarian.
Java Menteng.
Peninsular Malaysia Asam tambun, rambi, tamut, tampoi.
Sumatra Roesip, kisip. [source - retrieved from http://www.asianplant.net/Phyllanthaceae/Baccaurea_racemosa.htm on / /2013]
In Genesis 1:11-13, "And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (American Standard Version, ASV)[for more details, go to www.jw.org].

To see picture of this fruit and other tropical fruits found in Indonesia, go to, http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=id&u=http://masyants.blogspot.com/2011/01/buah-asli-indonesia-yang-sudah-langka.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmafi,%2Bbaccaurea%2Bracemosa%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Desa%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official

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

iris89 · 2/07/2020 6:33 am

COMBINATION OF [1] THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] FOR THOSE WHO LIKE TO KNOW THE TECHNICAL FACTS BEHIND THE TRANSLATION, CORRECT, OF JOHN 1:1, HERE THEY ARE. With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 130B]

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah 11:6 – 9, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Yes, this describes some of the conditions that will exist under the Kingdom of God that the Prince of Peace, Jesus (Yeshua) will rule over and that we pray for at Matthew 6:9 – 10, [AV] “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” Yes, and Isaiah 35:5 – 6, [AV] says, “ Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. Indeed, the so called ‘golden rule’ will be the standard interpersonal operating way of life as it is given at Matthew 7:12, [AV] “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

[2] FOR THOSE WHO LIKE TO KNOW THE TECHNICAL FACTS BEHIND THE TRANSLATION, CORRECT, OF JOHN 1:1, HERE THEY ARE:

But, first a definition, Jesus (Yeshua)-A Godlike One; Divine

Some salient Bible editions on the subject,

1808 ; "and the word was a god" , --- TheNew Testament, in An ImprQved Version, Upon , the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation:
With a Corrected Text; London,

1829, , "and the I,.ogos was a,gqd" -- The Monotessaron; or,The Gospel History, ,According to the Four Evangelists, , by John S. Thompson,
Baltimore. ,

1864 -- "and a god wasth~,Word" -- TheEmphaticDiagiott (.)'2\ lrlteriinear r.eading), by Benjamin V{ilsorl, New York an<;lLondon.
'
1935 "q,nd the ,Word was divine" -- 'l'he Bible-An American .Translation" by " J. M. P. Smith andE. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" -- New World Translation of the Christian Greek , Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"* -- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, GOttingen, Germany.*

1978 "and godlike sort was 'the Logos"" -- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes
Schneider, Berlin.*

1979 . "and a god was the Logos"" -- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Jurgen Becker,
Wirzburg, Germany.*
* Translated from German.

These translations use such words 'as "a god," "divine," or "godlike" because the Greek word eEO<; (the-os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is 'riot preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous "the-os'". The God with whom the Word, or Logos, .was originally is designated here by the Greek expression Qedz, that is, "the-os'". ,proceded by the definite article ho. .This'is an articular, "the-os'". . The articular construction of the noun 'points' to an identity, a personality,; whereas a singular ,anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to,a quality about someone., Therefore, John's statement that the Word, or Logos,--was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify his as one and the same as God himself..

In the Greek text there, are many cases of a singular antarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as those listed in the accompanying chart. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous "the-os'", in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a" god. The Sacred Scriptures Confirm the correctness of this rendering.

In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15: 39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, on p. 85 Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John l:1, "with an arthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of "the-os'". There is no basis for regarding the predicate "the-os'" as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Dr. Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring. before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns, check the following Bibles for the following scriptures:

Scriptures, Mark 6:49, Mark 11:32, John 4:19, John 6:70, John 8:44, John 9:17,John 10:1, John 10:13, John 10:33, John 12:6, John 18:37 in the following translations, New World Translation (NWT), Authorized King James Bible (AV), New International Version (NIV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and Today's English Version (TEV).

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

iris89 · 2/09/2020 6:44 pm

COMBINATION OF [1] THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] LET'S HAVE REALITY IN TRANSLATION. With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 131B]

And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. 22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. 23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. Isaiah 65:21 – 23, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

And in the New Testament this promise is once more stated at Revelation 21: 3 – 5, [AV] “And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.”
"What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to WWW.JW.ORG!

[2] LET'S HAVE REALITY IN TRANSLATION:

INTRODUCTION:

The understanding with respect some scriptures in the Bible is badly clouded by translational errors caused either by the translator's bias, lack of understanding of idiomatic expressions, or lack of understanding of ancient writing styles. Many of these can readily be seen by careful readers as they do NOT jive with the remainder of the Bible and/or do not make any sense upon close examination. Some of these scriptures are those whose meaning is the most questioned and argued by Bible translators and/or scholars. Yet most show flawed meaning when they are closely examined in lack of agreement within themselves and/or with near by scriptures. To better grasp the subject we will examine the case of John 1:1 whose meaning is perhaps the most disputed of any in the entire Bible due to biased translational renderings in most Bibles in common usage.

THE CONSTRUCTS:

Let's first examine the most common constructs used for translating this scripture and then consider the facts and last some advanced translational items dealing with this scripture.

The 10 possible constructs of John 1:1 that do NOT violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the fact is that THE-OS' (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God") for two of the constructs:

<1> "and a god was the Logos." [example of Bible using, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood, 1979]

<2> "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" [example of Bible using, Schonfield, 1976]

<3> "The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the word was." [example of Bible using, The New English Bible, NEB, 1961-present standard Bible agreed to by most denominations in the United Kingdom]

<4> "And the word was a god" [example of Bible using, The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.]

<5> "and the Word was divine" [example of Bible using, The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed. }

<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]

<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]

<8> "the Logos was divine" [example of Bible using, The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat]

<9> "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] [example of Bible using, Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1982]

<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 198

As we can see, here are ten different constructs possible without violating any rule of Koine Greek grammar except the count Noun rule. So, now, let's look at what follows in context in general format at John 1:2:

"The Word, then, was with God at the beginning," (The New English Bible, NEB)

"The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version, ASB)

"The same was in the beginning with God." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)

"He was in the beginning with God." (Revised Standard Version; RSV)

"He was in the beginning with God." (The Confraternity Edition of the New Testament - Catholic)

As is easily seen, John 1:2 is substantially the same in all translations. However, in context it does not harmonize with some of the constructs used which do not violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the count Noun rule to be explained later.

However clearly some of the ten (10) or more basic constructs agree in context with John 1:2 and some do NOT. Let's look at the point where some do not agree or harmonize with the context of John 1:2:

John 1:2 plainly says that the Word, or Logos, who is Jesus (Yeshua) was with God in the beginning which would be impossible if Jesus (Yeshua) was Almighty God (YHWH) himself. This rules out constructs 6, 7, and 10, represented below, as impossible as they do NOT harmonize with context.

<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]

<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]

<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 198

And two of these constructs do violate the count Noun rule of Koine Greek; to wit, constructs 6 and 7.

Now exactly what is the count Noun rule of Koine Greek? It is as follows:

The fact is that THE-OS' (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God"). The trinitarian argument hinges on stripping THE-OS' of its count-ability, so that it is purely qualitative. However, if a noun is PURELY qualitative, it is not a count noun. An adjective or a mass noun may fit their requirement for emphasizing qualitativness only, but a count noun MUST BE countable, for that is what *count* means when describing a count noun. If he accepts this rather elementary rule of English grammar, you can demonstrate that, as a count noun, THE-OS' may be translated either "the Word was God" (="the Word was The God", which is Sabellianism), or "the Word was a god". Since orthodox trinitarians reject "the Word was The God" (=Sabellianism), they are left with "the Word was a god" -- that is, if they remain true to English syntax (and English syntax is what ENGLISH translations are supposed to follow!). If one argues the point, let them provide an example of a non-countable *count noun* that is not used in a contrary-to-fact situation, such as a metaphor. I have yet to find anyone, trinitarian or otherwise, who is able to meet this challenge. Rolf Furuli, one of the two best living Koine Greek scholars, discusses this in his book, THE ROLE OF THEOLOGY AND BIAS IN BIBLE TRANSLATION, as does Greg Stafford, in his, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DEFENDED: AN ANSWER TO SCHOLARS AND CRITICS. There are also some very good posts by Wes Williams on greektheology that discuss this issue. I suppose if you search the greektheology archives using the word "count" or the name "Wes" you will find much helpful information. [source - Kats]

"To preserve in English the different nuance of the-os' [god] with and without the article, some (Moffat) would translate 'The Word was divine.'"

Notice a literal translation of John 1:1,2:

"In the beginning was the world and the word was toward the god and god was the word. This (one) was in beginning toward the god."

In these two verses we see six nouns, three referring to the Greek word logos (word, which most recognize to be Jesus) and three referring to the Greek word the-os' (god). We notice each reference to logos (word) is preceded by the definite article "the", while two of the three times the word the-os' (god) occurs, it too is preceded by the definite article "the". For some reason, John does not provide the definite article with the-os' when it is associated with "The Word". We thus see two definite individuals mentioned in this verse. "The Word", Jesus Christ, and "The God", who is Almighty God Jehovah. John does not say "The Word" is "The God". In fact, most Trinitarian scholars would argue that if John had said the word was "ho the-os'" (The God), it would amount to sabellianism (the belief that Jesus is both the Father and the Son). As such, it is commonly agreed upon that John was not identifying Jesus as God but rather, was describing him as deity. But if John did not say "The Word" is "The God", then what did he mean by saying, "the word was god"?

In Greek, it is possible for a noun to act as an adjective when it is not accompanied by the definite article. Consider a Biblical example of this in John 6:70. "Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (NIV)

Here the noun (devil) is not proceeded by the finite article (the). To reflect this most Bibles place the indefinite article (a) in front of it. Thus, Jesus was not identifying Judas as "THE Devil", he was saying Judas had the qualities of the devil. He was acting like the devil so he was A devil though not THE devil. This example helps us to see how the lack of the definite article can cause a noun to act as a predication rather than an identification.

Regarding this point, noted Bible scholar William Barclay writes:

"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it become more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class of the sphere to which the other belongs...

"John has no definte article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs...

"This passage then [John 1:1] does not identify the Logos and God; it does not say that Jesus was God, nor doesit call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God."

Mr. Barclay's observations are duly noted in the example we considered with Judas Iscariot being "a devil".

Now let's consider what the Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona University has to say: "The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word." Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."

Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who believes there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article. So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word (which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism. No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.

DEEPER TECHNICAL FACTS ON JOHN 1:1:

For those who like to know the technical facts behind the translation, correct, of John 1:1, here they are:

But, first a definition, Jesus (Yeshua)-A Godlike One; Divine

Some salient Bible editions on the subject,

1808 ; "and the word was a god" , --- TheNew Testament, in An ImprQved Version, Upon , the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation:
With a Corrected Text; London,

1829, , "and the I,.ogos was a,gqd" -- The Monotessaron; or,The Gospel History, ,According to the Four Evangelists, , by John S. Thompson,
Baltimore. ,

1864 -- "and a god wasth~,Word" -- TheEmphaticDiagiott (.)'2\ lrlteriinear r.eading), by Benjamin V{ilsorl, New York an<;lLondon.
'
1935 "q,nd the ,Word was divine" -- 'l'he Bible-An American .Translation" by " J. M. P. Smith andE. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 "and the Word was a god" -- New World Translation of the Christian Greek , Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"* -- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, GOttingen, Germany.*

1978 "and godlike sort was 'the Logos"" -- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes
Schneider, Berlin.*

1979 . "and a god was the Logos"" -- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Jurgen Becker,
Wirzburg, Germany.*
* Translated from German.

These translations use such words 'as "a god," "divine," or "godlike" because the Greek word eEO<; (the-os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is 'riot preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous "the-os'". The God with whom the Word, or Logos, .was originally is designated here by the Greek expression Qedz, that is, "the-os'". ,proceded by the definite article ho. .This'is an articular, "the-os'". . The articular construction of the noun 'points' to an identity, a personality,; whereas a singular ,anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to,a quality about someone., Therefore, John's statement that the Word, or Logos,--was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify his as one and the same as God himself..

In the Greek text there, are many cases of a singular antarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as those listed in the accompanying chart. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous "the-os'", in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a" god. The Sacred Scriptures Confirm the correctness of this rendering.

In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15: 39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, on p. 85 Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John l:1, "with an arthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of "the-os'". There is no basis for regarding the predicate "the-os'" as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Dr. Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring. before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns, check the following Bibles for the following scriptures:

Scriptures, Mark 6:49, Mark 11:32, John 4:19, John 6:70, John 8:44, John 9:17,John 10:1, John 10:13, John 10:33, John 12:6, John 18:37 in the following translations, New World Translation (NWT), Authorized King James Bible (AV), New International Version (NIV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and Today's English Version (TEV).

CONCLUSION:

Now many so called Christians point to John 1:1 to try and prove that Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) are one spirit being, an impossibility as one can NOT both be the son and the father at the same time as we all know. They use things to cloud the issue such as things are different in heaven or those are the words of men. In doing so they clearly forget that God (YHWH) used over 40 faithful man through divine inspiration to write the Bible as scribes that took the thoughts of men under divine inspiration and put them in the words of men so we could understand. Yet many biased translations say Jesus (Yeshua) is God (YHWH)such as the Authorized King James Bible (AV), "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." But even the translational constructs clearly show the bias and the error in translating John 1:1 this way. How so? Well as a starter, one can NOT be with someone and also be that someone, that is an impossibility. But getting past that, even if one is to accept this error there is yet another impossibility. What is it? To have a Trinity, one must have three of a kind, and no matter how you translate John 1:1 there is NO three of a kind, nor for that matter three of anything.

APPENDIX:

(1) How some Bible translators who did not have bias translated, i.e., were striving for translation fidelity and NOT to support this or that perception:

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
1979: "and a god was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood,
1768, "and was himself a divine person" Thompson,
1829, "the Logos was a god Torrey,
1961, "what God was,the Word was" Moffatt,
1972, "the Logos was divine Translator's NT,
1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature Barclay,
1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" Schonfield,
1985, "the Word was divine Revised English,
1989, "what God was, the Word was Scholar's Version,
1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was" Madsen,
1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being" Becker,
1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos] Stage,
1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. Bhmer,
1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] Thimme,
1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] Baumgarten et al,
1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Holzmann,
1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought] Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word] Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology),
1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind] Pffflin,
1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] Albrecht,
1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word] Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being] Menge,
1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) Haenchen,
1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch,
1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk),
1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos" Schultz,
1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]

(2) Amplification on How Some Bible Translators Translated John 1:1 And Why:

"And the word was a god" - The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

"and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson.

"and the Word was divine" - The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed.

"the Logos was divine" - The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat.

"what God was, the Word was" - The New English Bible.

"He was the same as God" - Today's English Version.

"And the Word was a god" - New World Translation

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

Index
» General Discussion
» Scripture of the Day

1/16/2020 6:15 pm #2291

Re: Scripture of the Day

1/22/2020 7:04 am #2292

Re: Scripture of the Day

1/23/2020 7:35 pm #2293

Re: Scripture of the Day

1/25/2020 1:29 pm #2294

Re: Scripture of the Day

1/27/2020 1:39 pm #2295

Re: Scripture of the Day

2/01/2020 12:58 pm #2296

Re: Scripture of the Day

2/03/2020 12:20 pm #2297

Re: Scripture of the Day

2/05/2020 3:42 pm #2298

Re: Scripture of the Day

2/07/2020 6:33 am #2299

Re: Scripture of the Day

2/09/2020 6:44 pm #2300

Re: Scripture of the Day

Index
» General Discussion
» Scripture of the Day

Board footera