It should be understood that the Greek language has no indefinite article, it only has the definite article, so to insinuate an indefinite the article is simply absent, so any translation into English where there is no definite article must contain the indefinite article with the associated noun. This site does not allow for the display of the original language , so to view it and a complete explanation of this translation you can visit http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm Anyways, a word for word literal translation of the greek text is in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word Note how the definite article precedes "god" in the first instance, but there is no definite article before the second "god". So the definite article must be used where there is one in the original Greek, but where there is no definite article in Greek, there is no definite article in English, so an indefinite article is inserted to maintain the specific thought expressed by the original author, as it is done in every other place in the entire Bible, to correctly translate it as in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word Note now the difference between "the God", and "a god"...why has it been translated incorrectly in almost every Bible? Why, where the words are different in the Greek, are they translated the same in English? Perhaps the additional removal of Gods name in over 7000 places is an indication that these translations are imperfect. Some writers say that since there is only one God it is redundant to refer to Him as "the" God, because it contradicts the rest of the Bible, which says there is only one true God. So let us have a look at some of this context and see if they are basing this on accurate knowledge. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) 4 Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him. . . (Exodus 12:12) 12 And I must pass through the land of Egypt on this night and strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from man to beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I shall execute judgments. I am Jehovah. . ." The writers of the Bible knew very well that there were false gods and men worshipped as gods, the term was applied in many ways, to refer to those in a position of authority or to those who were worshipped. There are many more places where people other than Jehovah (or Yahweh) are referred to as gods, but just those two verses saying "there are those who are called "gods"" and "just as there are many "gods"" proves fatal to that theory that "the" is superfluous or redundant in association with the title "God". The fact that a definite article appears in the original texts indicates otherwise. The writer also does not understand that there is no indefinite article, and tries to prove there should be none in the English by its absence in the original greek. If that is the case every instance of "a" or any other indefinite article in the English translation is a mistranslation, probably more than 10,000 errors in every Bible ever printed in English for using this word which is not in the original. The author also might say the "a" is inserted as "glue", to make the phrase fluent in the translation, as the insertion of "the" does before beginning, but the "a" is not "glue", it is an indefinite article which is implied by the absence of a definite article, and is inserted to retain the meaning of the original text, as it is done thousands of times in the other instances where there is no definite article in the rest of the Bible, to retain the meaning of the original, since dropping the implied indefinite article significantly changes the meaning of the text and is unacceptable translation practice, though it appears it is the most common method, but just in this one verse. "God was with God" Make sense? Redundant? But saying "the Word is God", any place where "God" appears we can insert "Word" and it is logically correct, like saying pi is 3.14, any place we see pi we can insert 3.14 and it is logical, it remains a correct algebraic expression. Similarly if we say Jehovah is God, any place God is written we can insert Jehovah, right? Wrong. If there is no definite article to indicate it is "the" God it could refer to false gods. Just like if we were to say "David is man". Can we insert "David" any place that "man" is written? No, otherwise we would have the contradiction that "Shabba is David" or "Jehovah is Jesus". This is why the original author put a definite article before"God", signifying "the God", yet did not put it before the second "God". Transposed it would read "the David is "a" man". The first definite article can be dropped without changing the meaning, but the second definitely can not. Any time a title appears without the definite article in Greek we must consider this. What does make sense, then? "A god was with the God"? The God was with a god"? Basically any statemant which implies that the two are seperate, and can be apart from each other, otherwise there is no need to say they are together. It would be redundant, superfluous, and a contradiction to say Jehovah is the only God, but Jesus is also God. And Balaam. And Baal. And Ashtoreth. And Ra. And Ceasar. And Pharoah. etc...etc... There must be a distinction between "the God" and "a god", and the distinction is made clear in the rest of the Bible, there is no definite article, no "the" associated with the noun god, as there is no definite article associated with the text in question so it is correctly translated as "a god". It is not glue, it is not a convention to make it more fluent, it is keeping in line with the original thoughts and expressing it accurately so as to not change the meaning, which is the trump card, the most important aspect of all translation. No other rule supercedes it. You can not sacrifice accuracy for the sake of appearances or fluency. The first and foremost job is to express the same thought in a different language, therefore it should be "a god". The reason for this dispute is those people who say the New World translation of the Holy Scriptures is a fraudulent translation, that these verses are interpreted incorrectly by Jehovahs Witnesses to suit their own theology, knowing they are incorrect. They also say that no first year language student or expert would translate the verses this way, and no language experts worked on this translation. They are "appalled" at the errors present. Is it true that no expert would translate the text this way? In addition to those translations listed below there are many widely accepted translations, such as some versions of the King James, which contain footnotes and comments from translators which say this is one of the possible translations, so their own "experts" can not be experts sionce they contradict each other. 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, London. 1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. 1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1975 “and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach kind) was the Word” Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany. 1978 “and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach the Logos” Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin. 1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

To me this question refers to the final section: "and the Word was God." Xanderman's answer and his reference are quite useful, but the problem you are going to have with this answer is that it is going to be biased. From my understanding, the passage CAN be translated both ways. If 'theos' is a name, and the way that God is called 'theos' (without the 'o') throughout the rest of the bible, then there is a case to say that it means "the Word was God." Looking at it from the point of view of grammar, which can be examined in the article Xanderman referenced, then it can also be translated "the Word was a God". I think that the question really isn't the heart of the issue. I would venture a guess that the real question being considered here is "is Jesus God?", or "who is Jesus?" I've asked that question myself, and been inundated with so much theology that it's hard to pick reality from opinion. I've been swamped with pro-trinitarian theory and anti-trinitarian theory, and my head spins. Up until recently I had chosen to believe the trinity, partly from my understanding, but also partly from fear of offending God by denouncing his godliness - if Jesus really was part of God. I've done some research since then, and I have come to the conclusion that 'the Word was God' may not be the issue in question. My question is this, and I shall post it as a question to gain some feedback: was Jesus the Word? What if this 'logos' wasn't Jesus, but the outworking Word of God? In my research I became aware of a concept called personification, which cited Proverbs 8. (This is one for Pugwash). The theory of personification states that the subject is not a real being, but a concept personified. In this case, Wisdom was not an actual being - most Christians agree with that. Rather, this text is a personification of God's wisdom. What if the 'logos' is the same - not an entity in itself, but a part of God, just like 'wisdom'? What if the life of this person 'Jesus Christ' was the fulfilling of this 'logos' - God's word being made flesh - his prophecies and promises of the messiah?

Jesus: A Godlike One; Divine Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)” Gr., και θεος ην ο λόγος (kai the·os´ en ho lo´gos) 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, London. 1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. 1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1975 “and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach kind) was the Word” Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany. 1978 “and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach the Logos” Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin. 1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany. These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·os´) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os´. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ο θεός, that is, the·os´ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os´. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”

Has the Society distorted or misquoted various reference sources in an attempt to support its position on the Trinity? Did the Society misquote and misrepresent well-known Greek scholars H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey? Yes. The Society quotes Dana and Mantey out of context by asserting that their grammar (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament) supports the translation "the word was a god" at John 1:1. Kingdom Interlinear, p. 1158 In a letter to the Society authored by Mantey himself we read: "...Because you have been quoting me out of context, I...request you not to quote the Manual Grammar... again, which you have been quoting for 24 years." He also asked them to "publicly and immediately apologize" for their misrepresentation. Mantey Letter, p.3 Why was Mantey so disturbed? His conclusion (found both in his Grammar and his letter) is that John 1:1 should be translated either "the word was deity" or "the word was God," not "the word was a god." Mantey estimates the evidence "to be 99% against" the Society's translation. Mantey Letter, p. 2 [Note: A word about John 1:1 is appropriate here. In this passage an important principle of Greek grammar is evident which has been a source of confusion for English readers. Note first the order of the Greek words as seen in the Greek text (consult The Emphatic Diaglott or The Kingdom Interlinear, both Society publications): KAI THEOS ÊN HO LOGOS And God Was The Word In Greek there is no written indefinite article ("A" or "AN")—just the definite article ("the"). The indefinite article is often implied before a noun even though nothing is actually written down to tell the reader it is there. But this is not always the case. The word theos standing alone without the definite article might be translated "a god" if it were not for another principle of grammar. That principle is discussed in Mantey's letter to the Society. Mantey Letter, p.1, 2 And what does that principle mean? E. C. Colwell discovered that when a predicate noun (in this case theos) is in the nominative case (that is, in the same case as the subject of the sentence—the subject being logos) and is placed before the verb (instead of after the verb as is usually the case), it has no article—even when it is needed. In fact, Colwell also discovered that it is indefinite (i.e., with "a" or "an") only when the context demands it. (see Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. LII (1933) pp. 12-21 from which Mantey quotes.) Harner (see Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. XCII (1973)) went on to discover that in 53 passages in John's Gospel, the Apostle John used this type of word arrangement to "express the nature of [the] character of the subject." Thus Mantey is right when he suggests the translation "the word was diety" or "the word was God" which stresses nature. The translation "a god" inserts an indefinite article that is unwarranted by either grammar or context. The translation "a god" makes Jesus another God, makes John the Apostle a polytheist, and makes a mockery of Deuteronomy 32:39 which reads "there is no other god with me"—that would make Jesus a god against the Father!"]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 KJV) I've seen that one of the newer versions of the Bible changes the last part to 'a' god, instead of God, but that is incorrect because there is only One God. (see Isaiah 44:6) Jesus is clearly God, not "a god". I hope that this helps. Thank you and God bless you!

Well, does John 1:1 prove that Jesus is God? Consider the following: “John 1:1, RS: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [also KJ, JB, Dy, Kx, NAB].” NE reads “what God was, the Word was.” Mo says “the Logos was divine.” AT and Sd tell us “the Word was divine.” The interlinear rendering of ED is “a god was the Word.” NW reads “the Word was a god”; NTIV uses the same wording. What is it that these translators are seeing in the Greek text that moves some of them to refrain from saying “the Word was God”? The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the•os′ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god. (See 1984 Reference edition of NW, p. 1579.) What did the apostle John mean when he wrote John 1:1? Did he mean that Jesus is himself God or perhaps that Jesus is one God with the Father? In the same chapter, verse 18, John wrote: “No one [“no man,” KJ, Dy] has ever seen God; the only Son [“the only-begotten god,” NW], who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (RS) Had any human seen Jesus Christ, the Son? Of course! So, then, was John saying that Jesus was God? Obviously not. Toward the end of his Gospel, John summarized matters, saying: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, [not God, but] the Son of God.”—John 20:31, RS. Taken from the publication, “Reasoning From the Scriptures” 1989 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society