Bracket: Fill & Download for Free

Originally Answered: “How many games are played in the NBA finals?”At least 4 and no more than 7.The NBA post-season (playoffs) consists of 4 best-of-seven series or rounds, including the finals. “Best-of-seven” means the team to first win four games, wins the series and advances to the next round and so on until they reach the finals. If they win the finals, they are awarded the Larry O’Brien Trophy.In order to become NBA champions, a team must win 16 post-season games. It can be done in as few as 16 games, but no more than 28 games. On average, it gets done in 22 games.NBA Post Season (2015) Bracket Structure (click on image to magnify)

Why would anyone—Obama supporters or critics—be embarrassed by his taxes?As I examine the Obamas’ joint tax return for 2015, I see that their effective tax rate was 18.7% because they paid $81,472 in federal tax on an adjusted gross income of $436,065 mostly from his salary and his book royalties. They had $145,425 of itemized deductions, of which $64,066 were charitable donations. $290,640 of taxable income.This means that their tax was 28% of their taxable income, which is pretty close to normal for someone in his tax bracket.According to this Tax Bracket Calculator, the effective tax rate on $290k of taxable income is estimated at 24.54% for 2016 (that calculator doesn’t cover 2015 currently).So are you asking if we should be embarrassed that the Obamas paid a slightly higher tax rate than they should have? I’m not sure what your question is about.

I didn’t watch the video, but it’s clear that the individual in the video is convinced that quoting a scripture that is omitted from our NWT Bible will cause the Witnesses to stumble and not know how to respond. Nonsense.The video presentation (based on this question) assumes the following:None of Jehovah’s Witnesses are familiar with their own Bible and are, therefore, caught off guard when this omitted verse is brought to their attentionThat the NWT committee omitted the verse because it somehow contradicts our beliefsThat the NWT Bible we use is unique in omitting Acts 8:37 and, therefore, this is proof that the NWT is a deficient and flawed translationHowever, when one does veritable Bible research, the conclusions drawn are very different. First, let’s have our NWT Study Bible answer why the verse is missing:“Some later Greek manuscripts and some ancient translations into other languages, with slight variations in wording, add: “Philip said to him: ‘If you believe with all your heart, it is permissible.’ In reply he said: ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” However, these words do not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and are most likely not part of the original text of Acts.​“This explanation is listed right in the Study Notes of our electronic Bible and is easily found when one examines the corresponding verse. Now, let’s dig deeper. If we wanted to know the specific manuscripts that omit the verse, as well as those that include the text, our own NWT Reference Bible answers that, as well:The following manuscripts omit verse 37:Papyrus Chester Beatty 1, Gr., third cent. C.E., DublinPapyrus Bodmer 17, Gr., seventh cent. C.E., GenevaCodex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British MuseumCodex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British MuseumVatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican CityCodex Ephraemi rescriptus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., ParisLatin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975)Syriac Peshitta, Christian Aram., fifth cent. C.E., S. Lee, London, 1826, reprint by United Bible Societies, 1979The following manuscripts include: “Philip said to him: ‘If you believe with all your heart, it is permissible.’ In reply he said: ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”Old Latin Versions, Itala, second to fourth cent. C.E.Latin Vulgate, Clementine recension (S. Bagster & Sons, London, 1977)Armenian Version, fourth to thirteenth cent. C.E.As can be seen above, the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts do not have this verse. This verse is also absent in some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, as well as the vast majority of the Syriac tradition (including all the earliest copies) and the vast majority of the Coptic manuscript tradition.“This verse, not to be found in some Greek codexes or in the better translations, was probably a gloss which later found its way into the text.“ — The Navarre Bible - Acts of the Apostles - Texts and Commentaries, 1989, pg. 77Is this just a NWT practice, as our opposers would like to claim? Is our NWT alone in omitting the verse from the main text and providing a footnote? Note what other Bible translations do regarding Acts 8:37:Amplified Bible (AMP, 2015), bracketed with footnote: “Early mss do not contain this v.”An American Translation (Goodspeed)(AAT, 1923), omitted.Darby Bible Translation (DBY, 1890, 2012), omitted.English Revised Version (ERV, 1885), omitted with footnote: “Some ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part, ver. 37. . .”English Standard Version (ESV, 2001, 2017), omitted with footnote: “Some manuscripts add all or most of verse 37. . .”Expanded Bible (EXB, 2011), bracketed with footnote: “Some Greek copies do not contain the bracketed text.”Good News Translation (formerly known as Today’s English Version, TEV) (GNT, 1966, 1992), omitted with footnote: “Some manuscripts add verse 37. . .”Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB, 1999, 2009), bracketed with footnote: “Other mss omit bracketed text.”Christian Standard Bible (CSB, 2017), omitted.International Standard Version (ISV, 2011), omitted with footnote: “Other mss. read 37. . .”Living Bible (TLB, 1971), footnote: “Many ancient manuscripts omit v. 37 wholly or in part.”Moffatt New Translation (MNT, 1922), omitted.New American Bible (Revised Edition)(NABRE, 2010), footnote: “The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading.”New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1960, 1995), bracketed with footnote: “Early mss do not contain this v.”New Century Version (NCV, 2005), bracketed with footnote: “Some Greek copies do not contain the bracketed text.”New International Version (NIV, 1973, 2011) omitted with footnote: “Some manuscripts include here. . .”New King James Version (NKJV, 1982), footnote: “NU, M omit v. 37. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.”New Living Translation (NLT, 1996, 2015), omitted with footnote: “Some manuscripts add verse 37. . .”Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1946, 1971), omitted with footnote: “Other ancient authorities add all or most of verse 37. . .”New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989), omitted with footnote: “Other ancient authorities add all or most of verse 37. . .”Young’s Literal Translation (YLT, 1862), bracketed.Clearly, the NWT committee of translators were not alone in how they treated Acts 8:37. There is valid reason why honest translators place that verse in brackets and provide a footnote, or omit it entirely.One should note that we, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, have no theological disagreement with the statement made in the verse. After all, we do believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and have published millions of books and magazines expressing that belief. However, given that the verse in question was not likely penned by a inspired Bible writer and not likely part of the original inspired Word, it is omitted from our NWT Bible with an explanation for its absence.