All Activity

The controversy lies in the translation of the word for God (theòs). The Grammatical Issue In Greek, nouns often have a definite article (like the word "the"), written as ho. In Clause B ("the Word was with God"), the Greek is ton theon (The God). This refers to the specific person of the Father. In Clause C ("the Word was God"), the word theòs lacks the definite article (ho). It is "anarthrous" (without article). Interpretation A: "The Word was God" (Trinitarian View) Most scholars and standard translations (KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB) translate this as "The Word was God." Grammatical Argument: Greek grammar rules (specifically Colwell’s construction) suggest that when a predicate noun (God) comes before the verb, it usually drops the "the" but remains definite or qualitative. The Meaning: John is describing the quality or essence of the Word. The Word possesses the same "God-ness" or divine nature as the Father, without being the Father. Refuting the "Two Beings" theory: If John had used "The God" here, it would mean Jesus is the Father (a view known as Sabellianism). By leaving out "The," John distinguishes the persons while equating their nature. Interpretation B: "The Word was a god" (Nontrinitarian View) The New World Translation (NWT), used by Jehovah's Witnesses, renders this as "The Word was a god." Grammatical Argument: They argue that because the definite article (ho) is missing, the noun should be treated as indefinite ("a god") to show class or category, similar to how one might say "John is a man." The Meaning: This view argues that Jesus is a divine being—a powerful spirit creature—but he is not the Almighty God (Jehovah). He is a separate, created being; essentially a "second god." The Result: This creates a theology of two distinct beings: One Almighty God, and one lesser god. Summary of Interpretations Feature Trinitarian View (Standard) Nontrinitarian View (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses) Translation "And the Word was God." "And the Word was a god." Grammar Focus Theos describes the nature/essence (Qualitative). Lack of "the" (ho) means indefinite (a god). Relationship 2 distinct Persons sharing 1 Being. 2 distinct Beings (Creator and creature). Status of Jesus Co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. Created by the Father; powerful but subordinate. Conclusion The text refers to "two" because the Word is explicitly stated to be with God. The controversy is strictly whether this distinction results in two separate gods (one Big "G" and one little "g") or two persons sharing the one infinite nature of God. The vast majority of Greek scholarship supports the "Qualitative" view ("The Word was fully God in nature"), arguing that if the Apostle John had intended to describe Jesus as "a god" in the lower sense, he had other specific Greek words (such as theios) available to make that distinction clearer. clause c 😀

Because false religion including trinity beliefs will be destroyed in the near future? Perhaps I'm guessing this right. 😆😅

OK - I see his point. NWP can easily work with a list of addresses, but they would all need to be within a specific territory boundary. The only way I can think of would be to transfer all your addresses to a spreadsheet, sort them by area, create NWP territories for each area, then import the addresses from the spreadsheet into each territory. If you have thousands of addresses, that could be time-consuming and tedious. One recent feature that would make that a little easier is the you can easily transfer an address (or a group of addresses) from one territory to another.

I'm sorry but how is it related to the topic?

This is Gemini AI's answer re: John 1:1 😁 Analysis of the Controversy in John 1:1 The controversy surrounding John 1:1 is one of the most significant theological and grammatical debates in biblical history. It centers on the nature of Jesus ("the Word") and his relationship to God the Father. The specific phrase referring to "two beings" arises from how different groups translate and interpret the Greek grammar of the verse's final clause. The verse is typically divided into three clauses: Clause A: "In the beginning was the Word," Clause B: "and the Word was with God," Clause 😄 "and the Word was God" (or "was a god"). 1. Why it Refers to "Two" (The Distinction) The concept that there are "two" entities comes primarily from Clause B: "The Word was with God." The Logic: To be with someone, you must be distinct from them. You cannot be "with" yourself. The Agreement: Both Trinitarians (e.g., Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox) and Nontrinitarians (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses) agree on this point: The Word (Jesus) and God (The Father) are distinct in some way. The Controversy: The debate is about what kind of distinction this is. Trinitarian View: They are two distinct Persons (Father and Son) within one eternal Being. Nontrinitarian View: They are two distinct Beings entirely (Almighty God and a lesser created god). 2. The Core Controversy: "God" vs. "a god" The fiercest debate is found in Clause C. In the original Greek, the text reads: kaì theòs ēn ho lógos (Literally: "and God was the Word") The controversy lies in the translation of the word for God (theòs). The Grammatical Issue In Greek, nouns often have a definite article (like the word "the"), written as ho. In Clause B ("the Word was with God"), the Greek is ton theon (The God). This refers to the specific person of the Father. In Clause C ("the Word was God"), the word theòs lacks the definite article (ho). It is "anarthrous" (without article). Interpretation A: "The Word was God" (Trinitarian View) Most scholars and standard translations (KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB) translate this as "The Word was God." Grammatical Argument: Greek grammar rules (specifically Colwell’s construction) suggest that when a predicate noun (God) comes before the verb, it usually drops the "the" but remains definite or qualitative. The Meaning: John is describing the quality or essence of the Word. The Word possesses the same "God-ness" or divine nature as the Father, without being the Father. Refuting the "Two Beings" theory: If John had used "The God" here, it would mean Jesus is the Father (a view known as Sabellianism). By leaving out "The," John distinguishes the persons while equating their nature. Interpretation B: "The Word was a god" (Nontrinitarian View) The New World Translation (NWT), used by Jehovah's Witnesses, renders this as "The Word was a god." Grammatical Argument: They argue that because the definite article (ho) is missing, the noun should be treated as indefinite ("a god") to show class or category, similar to how one might say "John is a man." The Meaning: This view argues that Jesus is a divine being—a powerful spirit creature—but he is not the Almighty God (Jehovah). He is a separate, created being; essentially a "second god." The Result: This creates a theology of two distinct beings: One Almighty God, and one lesser god. Summary of Interpretations Feature Trinitarian View (Standard) Nontrinitarian View (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses) Translation "And the Word was God." "And the Word was a god." Grammar Focus Theos describes the nature/essence (Qualitative). Lack of "the" (ho) means indefinite (a god). Relationship 2 distinct Persons sharing 1 Being. 2 distinct Beings (Creator and creature). Status of Jesus Co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. Created by the Father; powerful but subordinate. Conclusion The text refers to "two" because the Word is explicitly stated to be with God. The controversy is strictly whether this distinction results in two separate gods (one Big "G" and one little "g") or two persons sharing the one infinite nature of God. The vast majority of Greek scholarship supports the "Qualitative" view ("The Word was fully God in nature"), arguing that if the Apostle John had intended to describe Jesus as "a god" in the lower sense, he had other specific Greek words (such as theios) available to make that distinction clearer.

If I knew what "verse mapping" was I might be able to answer that. But whatever it entails, it doesn't sound like it's something that involves actually digging deep to find out what Jehovah intended us to understand about that scripture. Do you remember the concordance? Would that help in verse mapping? I was merely referring to the fact that I don't trust AI to tell me what Jehovah meant us to understand about Bible doctrine, principles and his standards. Even a scripture as simple as John 1:1 will not be correctly understood by AI or the creative days in Genesis. If I want to dig deep I'm not using AI.

Wet roosters instinctively started here H E E E R

He wasn't referring to NWP/NWS in general. We use it abundantly for pretty much everything that it offers, with the exception of territory. According to his analysis the territory management is ideal only for congregations that work their territory door to door. In Spanish we work from a list of Spanish speaking addresses, rather than visiting every door in the territory.

Could use a little more information (Prov 18:13). Do the main features of NWP work well in your foreign language? Are maps (ie, Google, OpenStreetMap, Bing) available in your foreign language? Is he concerned more about creating territory boundaries? Or about adding addresses? Is your territory rural and sparsely settled, or more like residential? What part of NWP does he think will not work well?

Many brothers and sisters today reflect the spirit shown by the Nazirites, not through a formal vow, but through thoughtful, intentional choices. To make room for the ministry, they simplify routines, adjust employment, or set aside personal preferences. Some are able to commit to a specific hour requirement as auxiliary pioneers or regular pioneers, while others give what circumstances allow. Notice, though, that Jehovah does not measure devotion by a title or a number. What he values is the willing heart that arranges life around sacred service. As the Scriptures assure us: “God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name.” —Hebrews 6:10, NWT. Often, those sacrifices are supported by quiet cooperation within the family. A mate’s encouragement, a family’s flexibility, or a shared willingness to adjust schedules can make faithful service possible. That cooperation is not secondary; it is part of the offering itself. The Bible reminds us: “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their hard work.” —Ecclesiastes 4:9, NWT. Whether family members serve alongside one another or support the ministry through patience and understanding, Jehovah sees the unity behind the effort, and he treasures the spirit that moves a household to put Kingdom interests first.

Wednesday, December 17 He is holy to Jehovah all the days of his Naziriteship.—Num. 6:8. Do you treasure your relationship with Jehovah? No doubt you do! Since ancient times, untold multitudes have felt the same way as you do. (Ps. 104:33, 34) Many have made sacrifices to worship Jehovah. That was certainly the case with those in ancient Israel known as Nazirites, or dedicated ones. This term aptly describes the zealous Israelites who made certain personal sacrifices to serve Jehovah in a special way. The Mosaic Law allowed for a man or a woman to make a special vow to Jehovah by choosing to live as a Nazirite for a period of time. (Num. 6:1, 2) That vow, or solemn promise, involved following guidelines that the rest of the Israelites did not have to observe. Why, then, would an Israelite choose to take the Nazirite vow? Such an Israelite was likely motivated by deep love for Jehovah and sincere gratitude for His rich blessing.—Deut. 6:5; 16:17. w24.02 14 ¶1-2

Are any using the territories module in a foreign language congregation? In my congregation (foreign language) we currently take advantage of most of the features of NWS/NWP, however for territory we use Alba. After his analysis, our SO has reported that NWS/NWP is not ideal for foreign language congregations. Any observations or personal experience?

There is a topic about it just now. Nice WT

I wonder about the five US permanently inhabited unincorporated territories - four are listed, but one isn't 🤔 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States American Samoa https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/worldwide/AS/ Guam https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/worldwide/GU/ Puerto Rico https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/worldwide/PR/ United States Virgin Islands https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/worldwide/VI/ Northern Mariana Islands NOT LISTED, but had 55 homes of witnesses living on the Islands in 2018? 🤔🤷‍♂️ https://www.jw.org/en/news/region/micronesia/super-typhoon-yutu-20181102/ For Britain, I think all the permanently inhabited BTOs likely to have Witnesses living on them ARE listed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories While British Crown Dependencies are NOT listed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Dependencies

Inventor of the first lightbulb was NOT Thomas Edison.

Many people believe the inventor of the fire hydrant Is unknown, whomever that was has had their I'd determined to be unknown, due to fire, Not accurate. It's probably Frederick Graff, neighbor of Thomas Jefferson.

I like reading the different responses. It's like watching a tennis match. Someone poses a question or thought that may have never occured to me, then one gives a reply, I see and like the response, then the next person gives a different reply. It allows me to consider the many different ways that things may happen but I know only Jehovah will reveal the correct one. It keeps my curiosity high.

The language used in Revelation 18:19,21 rather indicates that it will be attack not the procedure, triggering GT and events that mankind never experienced before. Upcoming GT is called GT for a reason .

Yes, and It's online.

Bougainville will have to be added at some point. The population voted for independence in a referendum. At the latest, Bougainville should appear in the report once the state is founded. (Bougainville was already listed as a territory in the report from 1969 to 1975).

Bykwl Buy your kids wrist laces. WRIST

Life intrudes. testing timely litanies B Y K W L

To avoid starting a new thread, I'll ask here. Wouldn't today be the day for the new study magazine?

The answer to your question may be that it won't involve a ban, per se'. The nations may decide that religion should pay taxes on their revenue and assets like everyone else. This would effectively put false religion out of business. The governments could move to seize their bank accounts and properties without "banning" them. Probably religions would try to resist and fight back. Then they could be shut-down as an enemy of the state. It will be amazing to witness . . .