/lit/ - Literature

>>21355736
There literally is nothing wrong with any of these ٩(◕‿◕｡)۶

>>21355762
The point John is making is that the Word is a divine being

But you are right that 'divine' may be too weak. 'A god' translates better the original text

1808: “and the word was a god.” - The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” - The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

Even Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

Jehovah's Witnesses have been criticized for allowing the indefinite article (a) at John 1:1c. However, the true fault lies with their critics !

It is the other way around...the absence of the indefinite article at John 1:1c has been purposely mistranslated in most Trinitarian-produced Bibles to fit their doctrine that Jesus is God !!!