How are the KJV and the Bible used by the Jehovah's Witnesses different?

Answer 1

The two main differences you will find are: 1) The KJV is an old English Bible, which uses the King's English of 1611, and the NWT is a modern English translation. An example of this is 1 Corinthians 10:25 where it says in the KJV "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:" This may be difficult for some to understand since the word "shambles" meant something different than it does today. The NWT words this scripture in a way that we can understand what is meant when it says: " Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience." So, the word "shambles" means a "meat market." Few people today would know that. Also, in the King's English, the word "let" means to hold back or restrain, exactly the opposite of what it means today. 2) The second main difference is the frequent use of the divine name of God, Jehovah. It is found in the KJV 8 times: Four times in it's complete form at Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; Isaiah 26:4. Once in it's abreviated form "Jah" at Psalms 68:4, and three times as part of a name of an object or pplace in connection with an act that He performed on behalf of His people at Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:5; and Judges 6:24. However, in the oldest manuscripts that are available today, the name Jehovah is found over 7000 times, more than any other word in The Bible. The reasons that the KJV translators left out the name and substituded the titles "Lord" and "God" are somewhat unclear, but some have theorized that it was due to an ancient Jewish superstition that the divine name was too sacred to be written or spoken. An example of this difference is found at Psalm 110:1, where the KJV says: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Some may be confused by this passage due to the omission of the name Jehovah which appears there in the ancient text. Therefore, the NWT renders this passage: "The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: "Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet." It becomes clearer David is seeing in this prophetic vision that Jehovah is speaking to His son, Jesus.

Answer 2

We are not different. We are normal people, with normal problems, normal jobs, normal families. One thing that does separate us is that we use gods personal name Jehovah in our worship. We go house to house telling people about god's word, the bible and what hope there is for the future. We also do not use idols in our worship (statues, crosses). We believe in Jesus as being God's son, and when it comes to baptism we believe a person must first come to know knowledge of Jehovah, Jesus and the Bible before making the decision to get baptised; therefore it is a decision made when a person is of age to dedicate themselves to doing God's will. And we truly try our best to live according to the bibles direction when it comes to moral standards. ( and all other things)

i hope this answers your question! :)

Answer 3

This question has caused quite a bit of controversy. Therefore it seems appropriate that it should be treated in two separate areas - a response (or responses) from Christians, and a similar response(s) from Jehovah's Witnesses.

Christian response

The vast majority of Christians worldwide, of all denominations, the vast majority of bible scholars, theologians, divinity scholars, university and bible college staff and the vast majority of clergy AND laity of all Christian denominations regard the NWT as a very poor and inaccurate translation where they believe major passages confirming, e.g. Trinitarian doctrine among many others, have been deliberately and blatantly mistranslated to give credence to what they see as the skewed beliefs of the Jehovah's Witness organisation.

It seems that the only support that the JW movement can amass for their translation is a book written by Jason BeDuhn where he derides the use of 'Jehovah' as God in the New Testament, and even cites a Catholic Bible (much to the annoyance of the JW movement) as 'as good' as the NWT, but who also agrees with just a few of the NWT mistranslations, although he doesn't put up an argument and merely states that he's right. It is, in fact, a common occurrence that when BeDuhn is backed into a corner his only defense is to state things like 'the question is in error' and resorts to the 'yah-boo-sucks' attitude of the playground rather than argue his case. JWs fail to mention that BeDuhn has a PhD only in comparative religious study alone and has only a basic understanding of New Testament Greek - less than, say, a second year theology student in the UK. Neither is he recognised in the scholarly community (Christian and otherwise) as anything resembling event approaching an expert in Biblical Greek, and much less so in Hebrew. In fact, it was written recently, by a respected theologian, regarding the translators of the NWT:

"It has been argued that the NWT translators were insufficiently qualified to translate the Bible, with only Franz [one of the JW translators] having any formal education in Biblical languages. It has also been argued that the size of the translation committee was very small compared to the number of translators involved in producing most other English translations. These criticisms are disputed by Witnesses, who state that the translation should be examined on its own merits, not on the speculated credentials of its translators."

In other words, if you need a heart transplant, go down to Macdonalds and ask some of the lads there to do one for you. I'm sure they'd manage, but I'm also sure that it wouldn't work!

The problem with the JW movement is that their founder, Charles Taize Russell had only a very basic education and had no education in the scriptures whatsoever, nor was he ever called to ministry. Yet this did not prevent him from declaring himself a 'pastor' and a 'Bible scholar' until found out in court where he couls not even recite the Greek alphabet. Russell began the Watchtower society by selling thousands of tracts (making a great deal of money) supporting his own skered version of the Bible. Russell reintroduced an Arian theology - discredited in the early church and declared heretical as those who spoke out against it were either eyewitnesses to events themselves or were disciples of those who actually heard Jesus himself teach, and knew Arianism to be wrong. Yet Russell, not having the grounding in scripture necessary to prevent his error, still pursued this discredited cultic theology.

The New World Translation was commissioned by the Watchtower society to provide an 'accurate' translation. However, to almost all Christians worldwide, they see the NWT as a very poor translation that continues to lead gullible people astray from the true message of God's love for humanity into a cult-like organisation that regards scripture as its 'god', and which replaces love and forgiveness with a disregard for the sanctity of life (by refusing blood transfusions even to dying children) and the message of revenge and hatred (through the custom of disfellowhipping).

There are too many incidences of mistranslation within the NWT to go into here, but there are just a few examples that show how even slight changes to words and phases can change the complete meaning of passages and render a whole new erroneous theology based on this translation. For example, The New World Translation renders the Greek term word "staurós" ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross, despite all the historical and archeological evidence, plus the evidence of the Church fathers who can trace their teaching back to the disciples themselves. The New World Translation does not translate the Greek words "sheol," "hades," "gehenna," and "tartarus," as "hell" simply because Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in hell, again, despite Jesus' own teaching on this. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of "coming" for the Greek word "parousia" because JW's believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900's - again, in error, as contemporary Greek documents of that time always translate "parousia" as 'coming'. In Colossians 1:16 the NWT inserts the word "other" into the text on several occasions despite it being completely absent from the original Greek text. this may be a small change but it renders the passages with a totally different slant. It does this to give the view that "all other things" were created by Christ, instead of what the text actually says in the original Greek, "all things were created by Christ." This is to go along with their erroneous belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.

However, the most well known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1. The original Greek text reads, "the Word was God." The NWT renders it has "the word was a god." This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (ie, the English - "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in the English translation must be added in by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable in English, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text. But here it does. More than that, JWs will not state categorically what they mean by 'a god' simply because their own theology on the matter is very confused simply because they cannot square the divinity of Christ with the skewed and warped translation of the NWT. There are many, many other examples where passages are rewritten in the NWT or words added or removed with the express intent of being able then to use 'scripture' to back up the JW Arian theology. I have yet, in all my dealings with JWs found anyone who is willing (or able) to discuss scripture (the New Testament at least) in its original Greek form. JWs have to accept what is taught them by the elders of the movement on pain of disfellowshipping, and this independent theological thought is banned. This is a great shame as if JWs were allowed by the movement to study scripture in its original form would then realise just how erroneous and skewed the NWT actually is.

Thus most Christians believe that the JW movement introduced the New World Translation of the Bible, not to help discern scripture and its true meaning, as do most modern translations, but to subtly (and not so subtly!) change scripture so that it now backed up their own Arian theology, and, as such, they see it as a travesty of what scripture, in its original Hebrew or Greek, was intended to convey.

Jehovah's Witness ResponseJason BeDuhn is Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion Northern Arizona University. He is NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses. He received quite a few letters after he was quoted in a Watchtower article supporting for the most part the New World Translation. It should be noted he does not support every point.

Someone asked him about what certain scholars wrote about the NWT; below is his response (with comments by me in a couple of places which are clearly indicated:

Dear Mr. XXXXX

Thank you for your message. It is always a good idea to check out your sources and confirm their accuracy. In this case, I was quoted accurately by the Watchtower. I stated in my letter the virtues of the KIT, and the combination of factors that makes it such a useful volume. Since that quote appeared, I have received many messages such as your own, which cite authorities against the NWT and point to specific passages where it is felt that the NWT has not translated accurately. I always check every such reference, because it is certainly possible that I might have overlooked something. I have recently completed a book prompted by all of this correspondence, called "Bible Wars: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament," which I hope will be published later this year. Through all of this work, I have found that the NWT is one of the most accurate translations currently available. Of course, it has its weaknesses, as every translation does. But on comparison, it does quite well.

I have read Dr. Countess' book. While I found a few good points in it, its argument is mostly tendentious and disputable.

You call attention to "lack of consistency and dishonesty" in the NWT handling of the word THEOS. Of course, lack of consistency does not necessarily entail dishonesty. I have found that all Bible translations are inconsistent in their handling of terms, particularly when those terms are theologically significant. Yet I do not think that all of these translators were necessarily dishonest -- that is, consciously distorting the meaning. I think most of these cases can be explained by bias, an unconscious expectation that a passage should read a certain way that conforms to the translator's beliefs. Unfortunately, you have been given bad information, since every single one of your examples for comparison are not relevant for John 1:1. All of the passages you cite for comparison have THEOS with the definite article HO, therefore it is perfectly correct to translate "God" in these verses. But in the third clause of John 1:1, THEOS appears without the definite article, and therefore the most likely translation is indefinite "a god," or in an adjectival function "divine." You ask if I disagree with a long list of my predecessors and colleagues in biblical studies. Of course, it is nothing unusual that people in this field disagree. But specifically . . .

(He next presents his responses, then concludes with:)

I hope you can see that I do not "ignore" these predecessors and colleagues, but rather find fault with their highly biased approach and surprisingly fallacious claims. I wish we could all approach this most important of issues with greater objectivity and desire for accuracy and truth, wherever it may lead us, rather than prejudging the outcome in advance of any attention and thought to the matter.

I wish you all the best in your continuing researches.

Sincerely,

Jason BeDuhn

Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion Northern Arizona University

WHAT GREEK SCHOLARS REALLY THINK!

About the New World's translation : "...the Word was a god."

Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: This statement is specious and without substance.

***************************

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: "Pernicious," "frightful," and "monstrous" are not objective, scholarly assessments.

***************************

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: "Pernicious," "frightful," and "monstrous" are not objective, scholarly assessments.

***************************

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1." =====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: This statement is in error.

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

=====================

Abdijah's Response:This is a specious argument without substance. (No direct response by Dr. BeDuhn, although he does mention Feinberg: "Colwell (and appeals to Colwell's Rule by Feinberg): This "rule" is not a valid rule of Greek grammar. And even if it were valid, it would not establish the definiteness of THEOS in John 1:1. Colwell's rule presupposes definiteness, and seeks to account for the lack of a definite article, rather than itself proving definiteness. The same grammatical data used by Colwell has been explained much better by Harner.")

***************************

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: This is a specious argument without substance.

***************************

Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: Similar to many other statements already mentioned with fall into the logical fallacy of "no one I know translates it that way, so it cannot be translated that way." Even non-Christian scholars are influenced by literary tradition.

***************************

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: This statement is false, the NWT translation of John 1:1 is not "grammatically impossible," and someone who says that it is either is ignorant of Greek grammar or themselves "intellectually dishonest."

***************************

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: This statement is in error. Omission of the article in predicative constructions with the nominative noun almost always has the indefinite or at least categorical sense. Dr. Bruce's language reveals the theological, rather than linguistic, context of his remarks.

***************************

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: This "rule" is not a valid rule of Greek grammar. And even if it were valid, it would not establish the definiteness of THEOS in John 1:1. Colwell's rule presupposes definiteness, and seeks to account for the lack of a definite article, rather than itself proving definiteness. The same grammatical data used by Colwell has been explained much better by Harner.

***************************

Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: (No response listed)

***************************

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: It is true that Acts 28:6 is not a valid parallel to John 1:1, because in the former verse the noun is accusative (THEON), not nominative (THEOS). However, there is plenty of justification for the NWT translation of John 1:1 in the dozens of passages in John alone that have the same grammatical construction and in which the noun is clearly indefinite or categorical rather than definite.

(I note Dr. Johnson does not mention Acts 28:4. There is a syntactical parallel with that verse.-Abdijah)

***************************

Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: This statement follows Nida's approach of first knowing what a passage says, and then translating it to match what you know it says. Such an approach begs the question: how do you know what a passage says before you translate it?

***************************

Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: The language used in this statement shows that theological, rather than linguistic, argument dominates here. Westcott's reference to John 4:24 is relevant, since the clause is a good parallel to John 1:1, but Westcott's claim that it proves the definite sense of John 1:1 is an error. It rather proves the opposite. The correct translation of John 4:24 is "God is a spirit," where "spirit" is indefinite or categorical, just as "god" is in John 1:1.

***************************

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's Response: This is a theological, not a linguistic argument.

***************************

Mr. Jehovah's Witness: Are we to simply ignore these eminent Greek scholars, and stubbornly cling to the Man-made teachings of the Watchtower, none of whom had any education to speak of in Greek Grammar?!

=====================

Jason BeDuhn's (who is NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses) Response: I hope you can see that I do not "ignore" these predecessors and colleagues, but rather find fault with their highly biased approach and surprisingly fallacious claims. I wish we could all approach this most important of issues with greater objectivity and desire for accuracy and truth, wherever it may lead us, rather than prejudging the outcome in advance of any attention and thought to the matter.

Unrelated to the above, BeDuhn also writes: "Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate" may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that "all reputable scholars," "every Greek or biblical scholar," etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie. I have looked into the matter, and found almost no reviews of the NWT in academic journals. Most date from the 50s and 60s (the NWT has been improved since then). This kind of blanket condemnation of the NWT does not exist, for the most part because biblical scholars are far too busy to review WBTS publications which are considered outside of academic interest. It is simply something we don't pay attention to. I would welcome the names of any scholar who has written a review of the KIT or NWT; I am looking for these reviews, which seem few and far between. The bible says do not add or take away from it. and Jehovah's witnesses have NOT changed the bible.

Final word as a corollary to the above answer:

Regarding the "blanket condemnation of the NWT not existing" and people "getting the quote from the same source" perhaps the last contributer should look at the post above (written by a Jehovah's Witness) where Dr. J. R. Mantey, Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski, Dr. Paul L. Kaufman, Dr. Charles L. Feinberg, Dr. James L. Boyer, Dr. Walter R. Martin, Dr. William Barclay, Dr. F. F. Bruce, Dr. Ernest C. Colwell, Dr. Phillip B. Harner, Dr. J. Johnson, Dr. Eugene A. Nida, Dr. B. F. Wescott, Dr. J. J. Griesbach and many others not listed, all of which are very eminent learned and proven Bible scholars, and all of which regard, independently, that the New World Translation is a 'deliberate distortion', 'indefensible', 'shocking', monstrous' and 'man-made' (their words, not mine). Perhaps the matter is now closed and the reader can make up his or her own mind regarding this translation.

Answer 4

Jehovah's Witnesses (like myself) use many translations in their studies. I use approx 20 different translations / versions / paraphrased ones.

My favorite is the New World Translation, because of it's adherence to accuracy. Many other translations are merely 'versions' (as the King James VERSION), not true translations. An then there are many 'paraphrased' Bibles. These are certainly not translations at all.

Answer 5

• The brief answer would be: Because the Translating Committee for the New World Translation are meticulous about 'accuracy of rendering'.

The New World Translation is the 'standard' by which other translations can be judged as to accuracy. The question should be: Why are all the other Bibles so different from the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Just one example: In the ancient Hebrew manuscripts you will find God's personal name 'Jehovah" (English) approx 7,000 times. Most translations have not been meticulous as to accuracy on this one item alone. They have deleted God's personal name, and substituted it with a completely different word. You can only imagine how many other mistakes other translators have made if you were to judge by that standard.

To answer the question is provided the following quotes as an answer:

Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar comment concerning the New World Translation. In 1989 he said: "This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in the NewWorld Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

"The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed-a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek."-Andover NewtonQuarterly, September 1966.

Answer 6

I could recite a litany of problems between the two versions of the Bible; however, I shall only point out one difference in the "translations" of the Bible used by Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses. This biggest and most glaring error of the the translation used by the Witnesses' is the erroneous use of the name "jehovah" for the name of GOD.

The use of that name stands in contradiction to the agreed conclusions of sound and disinterested scholarship. This is the case with regard to the Witnesses' approach to what they claim to be Biblical religion. It is inevitable that this should be the case, since this

approach grew out of a total ignorance of Biblical scholarship--a fact which

none of the Hebrew and Greek words which the Witnesses have lately begun to

scatter throughout their publications will ever be able to conceal.

The word "Jehovah" has become one of the fetishes of their cult, assuming an

importance for them which it has certainly had for no other group known to

mankind. The word is derived from the name which the ancient Israelites used

to distinguish their God from the gods of the Gentiles. It is derived from

that name, however, quite incorrectly. The Hebrews called their God by a

name which was written YHWH--all in consonants, we note, since the Hebrew

alphabet has no vowels. The pronunciation of the name, which existed

independently of the spelling, was doubtless something like "Yahweh."

Through an exaggerated type of reverence for the name--and also because the

name eventually ceased to be used--later Jews never pronounced it, and as a

result the original pronunciation is not sure to this day. What is

absolutely sure, however, is that it was never pronounced "Jehovah." This

version derives from a misreading of the Hebrew Bible after it had been

supplied with vowel indications in later Christian times. The vowel

indications that had been attached to this word were actually taken from

another, the Hebrew word for "My Lord" which was customarily pronounced

instead of the sacred name YHWH.

Now the Witnesses themselves know this nowadays, even if earlier Witnesses

did not. On page 25 of their New World Translation of the Christian Greek

Scriptures they admit this fact, but say that they have "retained the form

`Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the fourteenth

century" (that is, the fourteenth century after Christ).

The fact is, however, as the editors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible have

pointed out: "1) The word `Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form

of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and 2) the use of any proper name for the

one and only God as though there were other gods from whom He had to be

distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is

entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church." The

editors make this sensible statement in justifying their abandonment of the

impossible "Jehovah" that has found its way into some older English

translations of the Bible.

The Catholic Church does not use the name YAHWEH, God's True Name, out of respect..

See the link below.