Which Torah is correct?

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

(Deuteronomy 4:2)

Which Torah is right?? Focus on verse 4 additional commandment are found in the Samaritan Torah whereas form the Masoretic Torah it's missing ?.. according to deuteronomy that's a direct violation to Yahweh but the question is which version is correct?

-----------------

instead of bringing it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord—that person shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; they have shed blood and must be cut off from their people. (Leviticus 17:4)

(MASORETIC TORAH)

---------------------------------------------

And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, "TO OFFER BURNT OFFERING OR PEACE OFFERING TO THE LORD GOD THE DELIGHTFUL FRAGRANCE AND HE IS SLAYING IT OUTSIDE OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE TENT OF APPOINTMENT" and not he brought it to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:

(Leviticus 17:4)

(SAMARITAN TORAH)

The additional sayings are in capital letters to show you the difference between the two versions... Again which is inspired ??

-------------------------

Which Torah is correct?

And they rose early in the morning and went up to the heights of the hill country, saying, “Here we are. We will go up to the place that the Lord has promised, for we have sinned.” (Numbers 14:40 Masoretic Torah)

-------------------

And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we [be here], and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. "And the LORD God saying to Moses: speak to them that not you shall ascend and not you shall battle, as there is no me within you and you will be defeated before faces of your enemies."

(Numbers 14:40 Samaritan Torah)


-----------------------------------------

Which Torah is correct?

It's funny when Christians tell us the Torah they read is 100%  prestige and not a single word has been added or deleted. if this is really the case, then maybe they can tell us which Torah is correct?

----------------

Place the table outside the curtain on the north side of the tabernacle and put the lampstand opposite it on the south side (Exodus 26:35 Masoretic Torah)

Extended version

And thou shalt set the table without the veil, and the candlestick over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south: and thou shalt put the table on the north side. And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon: [of] shittim wood shalt thou make it. A cubit [shall be] the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof; foursquare shall it be: and two cubits [shall be] the height thereof: the horns thereof [shall be] of the same. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, the top thereof, and the sides thereof round about, and the horns thereof; and thou shalt make unto it a crown of gold round about. And two golden rings shalt thou make to it under the crown of it, by the two corners thereof, upon the two sides of it shalt thou make [it]; and they shall be for places for the staves to bear it withal. And thou shalt make the staves [of] shittim wood, and overlay them with gold. And thou shalt put it before the veil that [is] by the ark of the testimony, where I shall appoint my name. And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every morning: when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn incense upon it.And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations. Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon. And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it [is] most holy unto the LORD. (Exodus 26:35 Samaritan Torah)

So seductive

The disciples found it a problem when Jesus was talking to a samaritan woman, yet they never objected his feet being kissed and perfumed by a whore called Mary?(possibly Magdalene)

Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, "What do you want?" or "Why are you talking with her?"

(John 4:27)

        ------------------------- Compare to-------------------------

Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

(John 12:3)

As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

(Luke 7:38)

Now here's the awkward part if a man gets his feet perfumed and wiped by the hair of a woman how do you think he will feel. Wouldn't he get sexual urges after that, her soft hands holding his feet whilst wiping her eyes on his feet so the tears touch it, a very seductive moment. What kinds of thought do you think would go through the man?  Same goes for the woman what was she thinking when she was touching his feet and rubbing her face and hair ?

Was Moses the author of the Torah?

Do you believe Moses wrote the Torah that u currently posses ? 

Below I shall show you how Moses was not the supposed Author of the Torah that jews and Christians claim to have with them? I will only produce two points and shatter there entire false claim!

---------------

(Point one) 

Was Moses humble, or Evil, How did Moses describe Himself?

Now this man Moses was exceedingly humble (Meek), more so than any person on the face of the earth. (Numbers 12:3)

The meekest man on the face of the earth would never say that he was meek. Moreover, the meek man does not appear to be very meek in the judgments that he gives in the same book of the Bible:

"And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves." Num.31: 14-18

How does the Most humblest man who ever lived on the face of the earth according to Numbers 12:3 command such an atrocity on people? Killing everyone even animals and keeping little girls for themselves?

------------------

(Second point)

How did Moses get water out of the rock, Moses contradicts himself???????

(By smiting it.)

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. Exodus 17:5

-------------------------

(By talking to it.)

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water. Numbers 20:7-8

Both can't be correct especially when the supposed Author was the one commanded to do so? How could he have given different contradictory statements? How is that even reliable..... 

Lying, Stealing and Cheating in Jewish Talmud

The Jewish Talmud makes several provisions for Jews to lie to, steal from, and cheat Gentiles.  As usual, the only rule is that the Jew must not get caught (“profane the name” of Jews and/or their god). According to the Talmud Jews must return the lost items of other Jews, but they may keep the lost items they find of “heathens”, unless they think the non-Jew will find out about the theft. In a commercial transaction, if a Gentile makes a mistake in a Jew’s favor (for example, if the Gentile undercharges the Jew), the money does not have to be returned. Some commentators say that a Gentile may be actively and intentionally misled and deceived during a commercial transaction by disguising the low quality of goods.  There are even provisions for directly stealing from Gentiles, the perverse thinking behind this is that a Jew would give the objects for free while the Gentile would ask for payment, so it is ok to steal it from the Gentile.

JEWS MAY KEEP OBJECTS LOST BY GENTILES, BUT NOT THOSE OF JEWS
UNLESS THEY THINK THEY WILL GET CAUGHT (PROFANE THE “NAME” OF GOD) 

. His lost article is permissible, for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible? Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother’s: it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen. But why not say that this applies only where the lost article has not yet come into the possession of the finder, in which case he is under no obligation to look round for it, whereas if it had already entered his possession, why not say that he should return it. — Said Rabina: And thou hast found it surely implies that the lost article has already come into his possession. It was taught: R. phinehas b. Yair said that where there was a danger of causing a profanation of the Name, even the retaining of a lost article of a heathen is a crime. – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO PROFIT FROM THE MISTAKE OF A GENTILE
Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one zuz and said to him: ‘See that I am relying upon you.’ - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HIDE THE LOW QUALITY OF PRODUCTS FROM GENTILES

Rabina together with a heathen bought a palm-tree to chop up [and divide]. He thereupon said to his attendant: Quick, bring to me the parts near to the roots, for the heathen is interested only in the number [but not in the quality]. - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

DIRECT THEFT FROM GENTILES (BECAUSE A JEW WOULD GIVE IT FOR FREE)

R. Ashi was once walking on the road when he noticed branches of vines outside a vineyard upon which ripe clusters of grapes were hanging. He said to his attendant: ‘Go and see, if they belong to a heathen bring them to me,27  but if to an Israelite do not bring them to me.’ The heathen happened to be then sitting in the vineyard and thus overheard this conversation, so he said to him: ‘If of a heathen would they be permitted?’ — He replied: ‘A heathen is usually prepared to [dispose of his grapes and] accept payment, whereas an Israelite is generally not prepared to [do so and] accept payment. - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

Footnote 27: Especially since the branches were outside the vineyard and thus probably overhanging a public road; cf. B.B. II, 14.

LIE TO NON-JEWS TO WIN LEGAL BATTLES UNLESS THEY THINK THEY WILL GET CAUGHT (PROFANE THE “NAME” OF GOD)

‘Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law’; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] ‘This is your law’; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him.  This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. Now according to R. Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him!  - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113a

JEWS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE TO GENTILES (THE EXCUSE OF “RECIPROCITY” IS GIVEN)

MISHNAH. IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE OWNER’S CATTLE GORING AN OX CONSECRATED TO THE TEMPLE, OR CONSECRATED CATTLE GORING A PRIVATE OX, THERE IS NO LIABILITY, FOR IT IS STATED: THE OX OF HIS NEIGHBOUR, NOT [THAT IS TO SAY] AN OX CONSECRATED TO THE TEMPLE. WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE HAS GORED AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE, THERE IS NO LIABILITY,[12] WHEREAS WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE GORES AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE, WHETHER WHILE TAM OR MU’AD, THE COMPENSATION IS TO BE MADE IN FULL. - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud Baba Kamma 37b

FOOTNOTE 12: As Canaanites did not recognise the laws of social justice, they did not impose any liability for damage done by cattle. They could consequently not claim to be protected by a law they neither recognised nor respected, cf. J. T. a.l. and Maim. Yad, Niz. Mam. VIII, 5. [In ancient Israel as in the modern state the legislation regulating the protection of life and property of the stranger was, as Guttmann. M. (HUCA. III 1 ff.) has shown, on the basis of reciprocity. Where such reciprocity was not recognised, the stranger could not claim to enjoy the same protection of the law as the citizen.]

Once again another passage from Luke is Exposed !!

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." 

(Luke 23:34)

----------------------

Luke 23:34 is one of the most famous sayings of the Bible because it is one of the so called apparent seven last words of Christ from the cross: “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” It's a saying nearly all Christian Pastors deliver or shall I say hammer down during there Sermon.

Well guess what? this is gonna HURT CHRISTIANS that saying that Christians brag about never was said by Jesus, it's not found in the most earliest and ancient manuscripts, it's a later addition, a fabricated verse by later scribes... 

Let us read what bibles scholars have to say? :

-------------------

Bruce Metzger, in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994, pages 154, writes:

The absence of these words from... early and diverse... witnesses is most impressive and can scarcely be explained as a deliberate excision by copyists who, considering the fall of Jerusalem to be proof that God had not forgiven the Jews, could not allow it to appear that the prayer of Jesus had remained unanswered. At the same time, the logion, though probably not a part of the original Gospel of Luke, bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained, within double square brackets, in its traditional place where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel.

--------------------------

Jesus and the New Age according to St. Luke: A Commentary on the Third Gospel, by Frederick W. Danker (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing, 1972, page 237) comments:

The prayer in vs. 34 is in such harmony with the spirit of Luke's gospel and his picture of Jesus that it is difficult to question its authenticity. Yet is even more difficult to account for its omission in a number of manuscripts. It has indeed been argued that the prayer was omitted because of a conviction that the destruction of Jerusalem was God's judgment for the crucifixion, but a similar omission does not appear at Acts 2:38-39, where forgiveness is proclaimed to Israel. It is more probable that the prayer uttered by Stephen (Acts 7:60) suggested a parallel utterance for the passion account. Also, in its present position it interrupts Luke's sketch of the mockery and destroys the dramatic impact of the word addressed to the repentant outlaw (vs. 43). In vs. 43. If the words were originally included by Luke, they inform the reader that Jesus did not threaten his executioners, as the condemned were accustomed to do, but rather accepted his death as a faithful witness should. Thus in the Martyrdom of Isaiah (5:14) the prophet is praised for neither crying aloud nor weeping when he was sawn apart. By contrast, the psalmist cries for vengeance (Psalm 69:22-28; see on Luke 23:46).

----------------------------

The New American Bible (World Catholic Press, 1987, includes the following footnote:

This portion of v 34 does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Lk and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution.

----------------------------

The Revised English Bible (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996, includes the following footnote:

Some witnesses omit Jesus said, 'Father...doing.'

----------------------------

The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, Philip Comfort in New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (p239f.) writes:

The omission of these words in early and diverse manuscripts (the earliest being Papyrus 75) cannot be explained as a scribal blunder. But were the words purposely excised? … It is easier to explain that the words were not written by Luke but were added later (as early as the second century–for it is attested to by Hegesippus [who ascribes the saying to James in Acts] and the Diatessaron)… My guess is that the words were added to make Jesus the model for Christian Martyrs–of offering forgiveness to one’s executioners…. 

----------------------------

There you go another blow on Christians..... Shows how Christians preach a saying which never was said by there so called saviour... They should feel ashamed of themselves after reading this.... This knocks down the last seven so called words to six right lol

SHAME  !!!

Narrated 'Abdullah: As if I saw the Prophet talking about one of the prophets whose nation had beaten him and caused him to bleed, while he was cleaning the blood off his face and saying, "O Allah! Forgive my nation, for they have no knowledge."

http://www.searchtruth.com/book_disp...t=0&number=683 (http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=56&translator=1&start=0&number=683)




There is absolutly 0 evidence to suggest this is talking about Jesus(pbuh). In fact most scholars believe this could be refering to either Noah(pbuh) or Prophet Muhamamd(pbuh).

Ibn Hajar al Asqalani in his commentary on the hadith says that it is possible that it is referring to Prophet Noah (peace be upon him) since Ibn Ishaq narrates that once when Noah was choked until he lost consciousness and then when he woke up he said "Oh Allah forgive my people for they know not".

Ibn Hajar also quotes Imam Qurtubi and Ibn Hibban who stated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is most likely speaking about himself.

During the battle of Uhud when the Meccans were surrounding the Prophet (peace be upon him) and were about to kill him and the Prophet (peace be upon him) had blood on his face, he exclaimed, "O Allâh, forgive my people for they have no knowledge." (See Ibn Hajar, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Ahaadeeth Al Anbiya', Bab: Hadeeth Al Ghaar, Hadith no. 3218, Source (http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&ID=6265&SearchText=æÌåå&SearchType=exact&Scope=0&Offset=20&SearchLevel=QBE))

This story from the Battle of Uhud is found in the wonderful book "The Sealed Nectar"...

At-Tabarani states that the Prophet [pbuh] said: "Allâh's Wrath is great on those who besmear the face of His Messenger," observed silence for a short while and then resumed saying:

"O Allâh, forgive my people for they have no knowledge." [Fath Al-Bari 7/373]
In Sahih Muslim it is stated that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said:
"My Lord, forgive my people for they have no knowledge." [Sahih Muslim 2/108]
In Ash-Shifa ' a book by 'Ayad Al-Qadi ' it is related that the Prophet [pbuh] said:
"O Allâh, guide my people for they have no knowledge." [Ash-Shifa 1/81] (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR), Chapter: The Battle of Uhud, Source (http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch4s7.html#The Most Awkward Hour in the Messenger's Life))

True or False?

Almost all Christians  claim they have the Holy Spirit with them (or inside them). This is the point when they start to prophesy and boast they were inspired by the Holy Spirit but, the  question is, how do they know they don't have an "Evil Spirit" with them? It's Clear from the Bible Yahweh has "Two Spirits" which possesses  humans, one "Good the other Evil"

----------------

Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him. (1 Samuel 16:14)

("The evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied.")

The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully on Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand(1 Samuel 18:10)

What's worse Paul the founder of Christianity wasn't aware if he had the Holy Spirit yet Christians claim they have lol

Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 7:40)

----------------

Christians are in big trouble  unless they can prove to us they have the  "Good Spirit" from Yahweh  not the "Evil Spirit" ASK THEM FOR PROOF AND WATCH THEM TURN TO INSULTS!!

(don't forget to ask them how does God have Good and Evil Spirits within him? )

Jewish Oral law

The Oral Law includes all that Moses learned from G‑d by heart which he did not write down, but transmitted orally to his successors. This tradition passed on from generation to generation. The Oral Law also includes edicts and ordinances enacted by the sages throughout the generations, and laws and teachings extrapolated from the Torah's verses -- employing methodology prescribed by Moses (as he was instructed by G‑d).

Click here for a detailed description of the course of tradition.

Mishnah

From Moses until Rabbi Judah the Prince (Rabbenu Hakadosh) the traditional laws were thus learnt by heart and handed down from generation to generation orally. In the 3rd century CE, Rabbenu Hakadosh realized that because of growing hardships and persecutions the Jews might not be able to retain by memory all these traditional laws, so he decided to record them. Being both a great scholar and a man of considerable means, he gathered around him the greatest scholars of his time and recorded all the traditional laws and interpretations of the Torah that they had learnt from their teachers. All this vast knowledge he arranged into six sections:

1. Zeraim-"Seeds"-agricultural laws;
2. Moed-"Season"-laws of Sabbath and Festivals;
3. Nashim-"Women"-marital laws;
4. Nezikin- "Damages"-civil and criminal laws;
5. Kodshim- "Holy Things"-laws of Sacrifices;
6. Taharot- "Purities" - laws of ritual purity.

Each section was further subdivided into tractates, "Mesichtot," each tractate into chapters, and each chapter into Mishnot (sub-sections).

Talmud

The Mishnah was written very concisely, without much discussion or background information. Rabbenu Hakadosh's disciples later compiled the "Toseftot" and "Beraitot" where the subjects of the Mishnah are examined at greater length. The great scholars living after the redaction and completion of the Mishnah, who studied, examined, discussed and interpreted the Mishnah, were called "Amoraim" (meaning "teachers" or "interpreters").

The Mishnah was studied in the great Yeshivot of Israel and Babylon for several centuries. Finally, in the 5th century, Rabbi Ashi, one of the greatest scholars of his time, a man combining both scholarship and wealth, realizing that the growing troubles and sufferings of the Jewish people might cause many of the laws and interpretations of the Mishnah which had been handed down traditionally for many generations, to be forgotten, decided to write them down.

Together with his contemporary, Ravina, and other heads of the Yeshivot in Babylon, they gathered and compiled the Talmud (or Gemarah) -- the Babylonian Talmud, which Jews hold sacred and study to this very day. Some one hundred years earlier, the scholars of Israel had already compiled and arranged the Jerusalem Talmud, which -- although not as authoritative as its Babylonian counterpart -- is also held sacred and studied by scholars to this day.

Rabbanan Sevurai

The scholars who lived after the redaction of the Talmud, were known as Rabbanan Sevurai (Rabbis - interpreters). They subtracted nothing from the Talmud; they merely interpreted it.

Geonim

The great Babylonian scholars, successors to the Rabbanan Sevurai, were called Geonim ("geniuses"). For many years they headed the great Babylonian academies. The last one of them was Hai Gaon.

Rishonim and Acharonim

After the Geonim lived the great scholars: Rabbenu Chananel, Rabbi IsaacAlfasi, Rabbi Joseph ibn Migash, Rashi, Rambam (Maimonides) and others. Rashi (Rabbi Solomon Itzchaki) won immortal fame by his commentaries on the Torah and Talmud, without which it would now be almost impossible to understand either; and Maimonides by his Mishneh Torah ("Repetition of the Law") -- a codification of all the laws of Israel. The grandsons of Rashi together with other great scholars of their time compiled the "Tosefot" commentaries on the Talmud. The scholars who lived approximately the first 500 years after the turn of the millennium are called "Rishonim" (the "first" scholars).

Various great scholars of the following years, known  as "Acharonim" ("latter" sages), gathered the final decisions and settlements of disputed laws, as codified by the Rishonim and arranged them. The most outstanding of them was: the "Author of the Turim," Rabbi Jacob son of the Rabbi Asher. Later, Rabbi Joseph Caro reexamined and recast the law-decisions and arranged them in his famous work the Shulchan Aruch, the famed Code of Jewish Law, so that every Jew could learn and understand them.

The holy Torah--the Written Torah and the Oral Torah--is the Divine gift that G‑d has given us through Moses, on Mount Sinai. This selfsame Torah was handed down by Moses to his successor Joshua, and so on from generation to generation to the present day. As G‑d is eternal, so the Torah which He has given is eternal, and through studying the Torah and observing the precepts and commandments of the Torah, the Jewish people are also eternal.

Did he really have authority??

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Mathew 28:18)

----------------------

Not in heaven.??

“You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is NOT FOR ME to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” [Matthew 20:23]

Nor on earth .??

We know that we belong to God, but the Evil One (DEVIL) controls the whole world.

(1 John 5:19)

Satan has  more authority then Jesus on earth?

In whom the god of this world (DEVIL) hath blinded the minds of them which believe (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Satan decides what should happen to job from heaven and Yahweh agrees with him

The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD (Job 1:12)

---------------------

In short seems like Jesus has no authority on earth or heaven according to the bible.... 

He or she?

A few years ago, several publications reported the discovery of a rare English Bible called The “She” Bible. This version of the Bible is called The “She” Bible because of a supposed error found in the translation of Ruth 3:15. 

------------------

The following is an excerpt of my study of Ruth 3:15 taken from my book:

That night, after Boaz finished eating, he came to the threshing floor and went to sleep. Ruth slept by his side. In the middle of the night, Boaz awoke and realized that Ruth was by his side. He told her to stay there with him until morning. In the morning, Boaz gave Ruth six measures of barley and then someone went back to the city.

(But, who went back to the city? It depends on what translation you read.)

The Revised Standard Version reads:

“And [Boaz] said, `Bring the mantle you are wearing and hold it out.’ So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley, and laid it upon her; then she went into the city” (Ruth 3:15 RSV, emphasis mine).

The New Revised Standard Version reads:

“Then [Boaz] said, `Bring the cloak you are wearing and hold it out.’ So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley, and put it on her back; then he went into the city” (Ruth 3:15 NRSV, emphasis mine).

The versions disagree on who went back to the city. The following versions agree with the Revised Standard Version and say that Ruth went back to the city:

Christians got it wrong

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!
(John 8:57)

------------------------

Notice from the above text, once read from context we find that the jews and jesus were having a face to face dialogue. Jesus spoke about Abraham that he was waiting to see his days..

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” (v56)

Yet the jews answered back :

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!
(John 8:57)

Now why did the jews say YOU ARE NOT FIFTY YEARS OLD? AND YOU HAVE SEEN ABRAHAM?? What difference would it make if jesus was 500 years old since the time gap between Abraham and Jesus would have been 4000 years...

Unless they were speaking of a man who lived during the time of Jesus called Abraham which would make more sense saying your not fifty and you know Abraham.

Its like saying your not 60 years old how can you say you saw JFK ( ex president) now the question is if jesus was meant to declare his divinity then why didnt he say before Adam was Iam?? Thats if we take the Iam as God even though thats not what it means! Why stop at Abraham how about Noah do you see the problem this causes for christians

This tells us according to john there must of been a man during the first century called Abraham whom the jews were taking as a pious man

Here's another problem 

John 8:57: 

TEXT: "and have you seen Abraham?"
EVIDENCE: p⁶⁶ S^c A B C D K L W X Delta Theta Pi Psi f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect lat vg syr(p,h,pal) most cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B

--------

NOTES: "and has Abraham seen you?"
EVIDENCE: p⁷⁵ S* 0124 syr(s) one cop(north) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: RSVn NEBn TEVn

------------------------

COMMENTS: A few copyists apparently changed the Jews' question to be more like Jesus' statement in verse 56 ("he would see my day; and he saw [it]").

this changes the entire notion of the IAM saying wouldn't you say!

Textual Variant 

Yahweh feared himself?

A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD. And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears.

(Isaiah 11:1-3)

----------------

Our Christian friends boast this is a prophecy of Jesus the Messiah mentioned in Isaiah, and for the sake of argument they are correct in one way, this actually is a PROPHECY OF THE MESSIAH which Jewish rabbis don't hesitate to admit. But the question is does it fit Jesus and the question is no why u may ask read the above passage carefully its states in verse 2 and 3 THE MESSIAH WILL FEAR GOD!

IF JESUS IS GOD HOW DOES HE FEAR HIMSELF? The the dilemma our Christian friends are in is wether Jesus was the messiah which means he has to FEAR GOD, or was he God which means GOD FEARED HIMSELF? Where does the New Testament say Jesus feared God? If he dint then did he fear himself? If he did then he can't be a God but a Messiah 

Take your pick