@belle.liuu: Every nation, tribe, tongue, and cult will bow to Jesus YT: BelleLiuApologetics #christiantiktok #Jesus #Bible #cult

_krista.with.a.k_ :

My Bible app doesn’t even have a New World translation

Bing :

In John 1:1, the phrase is:  kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos  “and the Word was with [the] God, and [a] god was the Word”. The first mention of “God” (ton theon, accusative case) includes the definite article (ton), identifying a specific person, Jehovah God the Father. The second mention (theos, nominative case) lacks the definite article, making it anarthrous (without the article). In Koiné Greek, anarthrous predicate nouns before the verb, like theos in John 1:1c, often convey a qualitative or indefinite sense rather than a definite identity. Greek lacks an indefinite article (“a” or “an”), but English requires one to convey this nuance accurately.

angel.thinks :

I pray a doorbell disciple comes to my door one day 🙏🏽

JW Study.Org :

Belle you destroy yourself, we don't we chose different words for the translation that are more accurate and in line with the greek

Alonso :

While many Bible translators render the verse this way, others see the need to render it differently. In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different. In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant. For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” b Other scholars c and Bible translations point to this same distinction. For more informationif you want: https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=502300113&srcid=share

Margo Martindale :

Can someone recommend the KGB(KJV) to me 😭

user78190191567115 :

Ur so young and so smart

user2823637965217 :

Chief Donald :

good evening, please check your inbox I sent you a message.

Daniel Solomon :

Well John 1:1c actually doesn’t have the definite article that is present in John 1:1b. The definite article in John 1:1b makes it clear that the God/Elohim there is identity - the God - not nature. But the lack of definite article in John 1:1c indicates that the God/Elohim is the nature of “the Word.” So John 1:1 talks about “the God” and “the Word” whose nature is Elohim/God/god/divine/deity. Jesus is Elohim by nature, but He is not Yahweh, Jesus is the Son of Yahweh.

Rya Am 🌻 :

That’s why I stay with KJV but I want to really get into the Ethiopian and Genova Bibles because those are the oldest bibles that were published and they have more books, nothing added or subtracted from Gods word amen

Tbone :

A few quotes on John 1:1c from scholars & researchers: 👇🏾 Yale New Testament scholar Adela Yarbro-Collins notes regarding John 1:1: “…the third clause of John 1:1 may be translated either ‘the Word was God’ or ‘the Word was a god’. Justin Martyr apparently understood the passage in the latter way. According to Henry Chadwick, ‘Justin had boldly spoken of the divine logos as ‘another God’ beside the Father, qualified by the gloss ‘other, I mean, in number, not in will.’” (Adela Yarbro-Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God), pp. 175 & 176 ▪︎ She & Henry Chadwick were referring to this comment by Martyr: “Then I replied, ‘I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things–above whom there is no other God–wishes to announce to them.'” ■ "Origen appealed to John 1:1, which has no definite article in the expression "the Word was God" & therefore could be translated "the Word was a God" (or perhaps "divine")." - Christology: A Global Introduction By Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

Tbone :

John 1.1

clintloudermilk :

i read the nlt

BunniManiii :

No . You cant change it by adding or taking away from it but you can reference passages in a different order

patotomat :

Denominations usually do not care what version you use because they all say the same thing. NWT isn’t any of those translations. Also, other translations have been gone through by Christian and non-Christian scholars which makes them standardized

Tbone :

"Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1 and 1:18" (To read copy and paste the link into your Google browser) 👇🏾 https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml

user2823637965217 :

marvn037 :

@Belle Liu what do you know about bible translations?

Bing :

The New World Translation (NWT) is often criticized for rendering John 1:1c as “and the Word was a god,” but it is not the first nor the only Bible to render John 1:1c with an indefinite article or qualitative description. Several translations, many predating the NWT, adopt similar approaches: 1808: “and the word was a god.” – The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Thomas Belsham. 1822: “and the Word was a god.” – The New Testament in Greek and English, A. Kneeland. 1864: “and a god was the Word.” – The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson. 1935: “and the Word was divine.” – The Bible—An American Translation, J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1955: “so the Word was divine.” – The Authentic New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield. 1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Siegfried Schulz. 1978: “and godlike sort was the Logos.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Johannes Schneider. To date, some 200 translations worldwide reflect similar renderings, either by inserting “a” before “god” or describing the Word as “divine.” The point is that there are other translations that translate by inserting the indefinite article “a” before “god” (Gr. theos) or translate by simply referring to the qualitative state of “a god” by using “divine.”

user9252034751144 :

Praise Jesus, for His kingdom is forever and ever! Jesus is LORD!

Andy Ehara Japan :

Cults or the unalivers were responsible for the unalivings during the Spanish Inquisition and by burning those who denied the 4th century doctrines known as the trinity and oneness doctrines. Anything that takes the credit and worship away from the father or making a created being equal to the father are called false religions aka Babylon the great.

Aurora Blandino-Amelse :

I grew up JW and now that I’m out of it’s I can honestly say how terrifying being in is. It is definitely a cult style religion. The fear that they instilled in me so that I wouldn’t leave is despicable

IrishMedic1 :

They also believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Hebrew’s says “to which of the angels did God ever say you are my son, today I have become your father, I have recognized none”. I show them that out of their Bible and they get mad.

The Exegetical Christian :

JWs did not modify John 1:1. That rendering is not unique to them, and they’ve held that position for over a century. Claims to the contrary usually come from people who don’t really understand Greek, the range of scholarly opinion, Bible translation history, or the early versions. Origen, in the second to third century, reflects that same kind of understanding of John 1:1, and unlike you, he actually spoke Greek. You’re not going to be able to evangelize to them on this point, because you’re not qualified to speak on it the way you think you are. What you will end up doing is making yourself, and anyone following your lead, look uninformed when engaging with them.