i ran across a change between the printed edition of the december 15, 2013 wt study edition and the magazine as a pdf download from the jw.org website.. whether the change amounts to much, i'm not sure.
but it is curious.
the change is in paragraph 16 on page 15:.
That is an interesting thought. I want to see if it causes any confusion at the meeting today as it is read.
Those using an iPad device will see the changed version. And those using the paper edition will see the original. With an increasing number using the electronic version this should be interesting.
i ran across a change between the printed edition of the december 15, 2013 wt study edition and the magazine as a pdf download from the jw.org website.. whether the change amounts to much, i'm not sure.
but it is curious.
the change is in paragraph 16 on page 15:.
I ran across a change between the printed edition of the December 15, 2013 WT Study Edition and the magazine as a PDF download from the JW.Org website.
Whether the change amounts to much, I'm not sure. But it is curious. The change is in paragraph 16 on page 15:
| Printed Edition | PDF Edition |
| 16 However, a word of caution is needed. As was true of the ancient Israelites, we must make sure that our voluntary sacrifices are acceptable to God. What could call that into question? We have to maintain our balance so that we care for our primary responsibilities in connection with our families and the worship of Jehovah. Assisting with Kingdom Halls, relief work, and other activities would not be "especially acceptable" if our giving causes us to neglect the spirituality or physical welfare of our family. We would, in effect, be giving from what we do not have. (Read 2 Corinthians 8:12.) Additionally, we must maintain our own spirituality so that we do not become disqualified somehow. (1 Cor. 9:26, 27) Be assured, though, that when we live up to Bible standards, our sacrifices bring much joy and satisfaction to us, and they are "especially acceptable" to Jehovah. | 16 However, a word of caution is needed. As was true of the ancient Israelites, we must make sure that our voluntary sacrifices are acceptable to God. We have to maintain our balance so that we care for our primary responsibilities in connection with our families and the worship of Jehovah. The giving of our time and resources in behalf of others should not cause us to neglect the spirituality or physical welfare of our family. Otherwise, we would, in effect, be giving from what we do not have. (Read 2 Corinthians 8:12.) Additionally, we must maintain our own spirituality. (1 Cor. 9:26, 27) Be assured, though, that when we live up to Bible standards, our sacrifices bring much joy and satisfaction to us, and they are "especially acceptable" to Jehovah. |
I emboldened and underlined the differences. I suspect the PDF version is more recent than the printed edition due to lead times needed for printing. So, for some reason, they saw a need to rephrase or change the printed edition to the PDF version.
The changes are:
Original included question (removed in PDF):
Original sentence:
Becomes:
Original phrase (removed in PDF):
The paragraph question remains exactly the same.
I wonder what led to that? Any thoughts? I wonder if they thought the first sentence might have caused some to back off of the activities specified after analysing their personal circumstances? The revised paragraph is a bit more 'bland.'
Take Care
within the last few years i understand watchtower has issued a concession (no apology) of minor proportion.
they don't admit to the avalanche of some 8 sequential positions (yes, no, yes, no, ...) of, "will the sodomites receive a resurrection?".
i think they admit to about three of them.
please make one sentence each from the following sets of facts:.
1) a man: he's cynical/he's old/he's a bachelor/he's grizzled.
2) a boy: he owns a schwinn bicycle/he's 10 years old/the bike is blue/it's a christmas gift/it has three speeds.
CoCo:
I composed my sentence kinda in a hurry, as I was on my way to doing something else. So I didn't have time to put in my reasoning.
I think the basic idea behind my use of adjectives was grouping them into 'families.' For example, for the man, "grizzled" and "old" describe his appearance, "cynical" is an attitude (and I may have needed a comma between "grizzled" and "old" (not sure). Similarly, Mary's description breaks down to "location" (from Maple Street), "age" (a sophmore), and "hair" (curly, red, and long). For the bike, 3-speed desribes its mechanical operation, whereas, that it was a Christmas gift describes how the boy received it.
I could see where the adjectives might be grouped into different families and introduced in different order based on the view of the writer and how he/she wishes to compose the sentence. Language, and the use of it, is an amazing gift/talent.
The semi-colon I used might have better been a colon. To me, semi-colons seem to seperate thoughts, not necessarily directly related. Colons, on the other hand, seem to directly point (sort of like an arrow) to the thought that follows. I don't know if that is official use of them. But that is how my mind sees them.
When I first composed it, I wasn't sure if you wanted 3 sentences (for the man, girl, and boy) or just one that encompassed them all. Looking at your first post again, it appears you were looking for a seperate sentence for each. So my composition suffered a little from lack of attention to detail. But it was fun trying to compose them all together into one.
Take Care
please make one sentence each from the following sets of facts:.
1) a man: he's cynical/he's old/he's a bachelor/he's grizzled.
2) a boy: he owns a schwinn bicycle/he's 10 years old/the bike is blue/it's a christmas gift/it has three speeds.
please make one sentence each from the following sets of facts:.
1) a man: he's cynical/he's old/he's a bachelor/he's grizzled.
2) a boy: he owns a schwinn bicycle/he's 10 years old/the bike is blue/it's a christmas gift/it has three speeds.
From the seat of his blue 3-speed Schwinn, a Christmans gift, the 10 year old boy saw his 'hope'; Mary, the one from Maple street, with her long curly red locks, a sophmore, strolling alongside her cynical, grizzled old bachelor of an uncle.
i noticed they removed several important ones like mark 16:9-20 acts 8:37 and romans 16:24, so how does one find out if there is any relevance to them removing these verses and others.
they of course say these verses were not found in the oldest manuscripts so how can we see if they are correct or lying??
?.
i came across this nugget in the may 2014 issue:.
"are you moving ahead with jehovah's organization".
....at one time, the anointed remnant were like the little one, but their number grew as other spiritual israelites were brought into gods organization.
i am just putting this out there.
notice how they repeatedly stress that the proceedings are not a trial or legal proceeding?
is this their way of putting out their position so that they have a legal defense against challenges of those disfellowshipped?
I kinda think they don't want the elders to think of a JC in terms of a legal trial. Maybe some elders were viewing the accused as a person with 'rights' and requiring 'due process.' Maybe the Society feels that that is behind some of the spate of merciful attitude that has gotten hold of some of these Judicial Committees. Perhaps they see some elders holding themselves to the same standard of proof that courts hold themselves to.
migration via quantum mechanicsa perplexing property of quantum mechanics could be allowing birds to see and navigate the planets magnetic fieldsone-fifth of earth's 10,000 bird species migrate over great distances, crossing seemingly insurmountable obstacles as they follow the seasons.. demoiselle cranes fly to altitudes in excess of 20,000 feet as they pass over the himalayan mountains.
the arctic tern travels from pole to pole in pursuit of an endless summer, a distance of some 40,000 miles.. scientists have long speculated that certain animals are making use of magnetic fields to find their way, but biologists are mystified as to how they might do it.. now some answers might be coming from one of the most perplexing interactions in physics.. quantum entanglement dictates that if two electrons are created at the same time, the pair will be entangled so that whatever happens to one particle affects the other.
otherwise, it would violate fundamental laws of physics.. the two particles remain entangled even when separated by vast distances.. http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/pia-entanglement1.cfm.
