John 1:1, the word was "a god."

[onewithhim]

Does anyone here have the list of Bible versions that say of John 1:1c "the word was a god"? I know there are several.

[onewithhim]

You posted reference texts, can't you post those text itself for ready reference?
I just wonder why Arians just alter one verse, John 1:1c as "a god" where next verses of same chapter does not have an "a" like; 2,6,12,13 and specially verse 18 below;

John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASB

The rule for the addition of "a" has been explained many times. It's useless to keep going over it and it's too bad that you don't understand what it means to translate the Greek into English.

Now, there are at least 16 to 30 versions of the Bible (that have been posted on this thread) that say "the only begotten SON," not the only begotten God. John 1:18 is not a good verse for you to prove Jesus is God. Manuscripts differ. The newer ones are more likely to take liberties with the verses, in many cases.

Why based heavily on translation? Can't we go to original language Greek? Translation inherently involves interpretation, you will be interpreting which was already interpreted, especially paraphrase translation that changed Bible words. https://www.google.com/search?q=do+tran ... e&ie=UTF-8

Westcott and Hort's The New Testament in the Original Greek rendered John 1:1c as "and God was the word."
Note: it is not a translation it is original Greek of the New Testament. The pioneers of modern textual criticism,
they developed a new approach to determining the original text of the New Testament by examining various Greek manuscripts. Methodological approach, they used internal and external criteria to evaluate manuscript readings, including the age of the manuscript, its linguistic style, and its relation to other manuscript. See original Greek below;

Jhn 1:1 εν G1722 PREP  αρχη G746 N-DSF  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  και G2532 CONJ  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  προς G4314 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  θεον G2316 N-ASM  και G2532 CONJ  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ην    λογος G3056 N-NSM 

Jesus as the only-begotten God in John 1:18 was supported by the original wordings of the oldest papyrus, the papyrus 66, the manuscript contains John 1:1–6:11, 6:35b–14:26, 29–30; 15:2–26; 16:2–4, 6–7; 16:10–20:20, 22–23; 20:25–21:9, 12, 17. It is one of the oldest well-preserved New Testament manuscripts known to exist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_6 ... 20remained.

Followed by papyrus 75, is an early Greek New Testament manuscript written on papyrus containing text from the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53, and John 1:1–15:8.1  It is generally described as "the most significant" papyrus of the New Testament to be discovered so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

Yes, there are various reading about "Son" but those manuscripts were not the oldest.

Well, then, what do those manuscripts actually say about John 1:1c and John 1:18?

Not the oldest means, might be prone to copyist mistakes.
It was labelled various reading but the P66 and P75 were labelled original wordings.

Way back in the day copyists copied the Scriptures carefully, word-for-word. Yet there was just as much of a chance of being corrupted by a copyist then as with the more recent texts.

[Capbook]

The rule for the addition of "a" has been explained many times. It's useless to keep going over it and it's too bad that you don't understand what it means to translate the Greek into English.

Now, there are at least 16 to 30 versions of the Bible (that have been posted on this thread) that say "the only begotten SON," not the only begotten God. John 1:18 is not a good verse for you to prove Jesus is God. Manuscripts differ. The newer ones are more likely to take liberties with the verses, in many cases.

Why based heavily on translation? Can't we go to original language Greek? Translation inherently involves interpretation, you will be interpreting which was already interpreted, especially paraphrase translation that changed Bible words. https://www.google.com/search?q=do+tran ... e&ie=UTF-8

Westcott and Hort's The New Testament in the Original Greek rendered John 1:1c as "and God was the word."
Note: it is not a translation it is original Greek of the New Testament. The pioneers of modern textual criticism,
they developed a new approach to determining the original text of the New Testament by examining various Greek manuscripts. Methodological approach, they used internal and external criteria to evaluate manuscript readings, including the age of the manuscript, its linguistic style, and its relation to other manuscript. See original Greek below;

Jhn 1:1 εν G1722 PREP  αρχη G746 N-DSF  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  και G2532 CONJ  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  προς G4314 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  θεον G2316 N-ASM  και G2532 CONJ  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ην    λογος G3056 N-NSM 

Jesus as the only-begotten God in John 1:18 was supported by the original wordings of the oldest papyrus, the papyrus 66, the manuscript contains John 1:1–6:11, 6:35b–14:26, 29–30; 15:2–26; 16:2–4, 6–7; 16:10–20:20, 22–23; 20:25–21:9, 12, 17. It is one of the oldest well-preserved New Testament manuscripts known to exist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_6 ... 20remained.

Followed by papyrus 75, is an early Greek New Testament manuscript written on papyrus containing text from the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53, and John 1:1–15:8.1  It is generally described as "the most significant" papyrus of the New Testament to be discovered so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

Yes, there are various reading about "Son" but those manuscripts were not the oldest.

Well, then, what do those manuscripts actually say about John 1:1c and John 1:18?

Not the oldest means, might be prone to copyist mistakes.
It was labelled various reading but the P66 and P75 were labelled original wordings.

Way back in the day copyists copied the Scriptures carefully, word-for-word. Yet there was just as much of a chance of being corrupted by a copyist then as with the more recent texts.

And that proves my point that its advantageous to rely on older manuscripts, especially when recent scholarship decide to label it as the original wordings like the P66 and P75, results of their exhaustive study.

[onewithhim]

Why based heavily on translation? Can't we go to original language Greek? Translation inherently involves interpretation, you will be interpreting which was already interpreted, especially paraphrase translation that changed Bible words. https://www.google.com/search?q=do+tran ... e&ie=UTF-8

Westcott and Hort's The New Testament in the Original Greek rendered John 1:1c as "and God was the word."
Note: it is not a translation it is original Greek of the New Testament. The pioneers of modern textual criticism,
they developed a new approach to determining the original text of the New Testament by examining various Greek manuscripts. Methodological approach, they used internal and external criteria to evaluate manuscript readings, including the age of the manuscript, its linguistic style, and its relation to other manuscript. See original Greek below;

Jhn 1:1 εν G1722 PREP  αρχη G746 N-DSF  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  και G2532 CONJ  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  προς G4314 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  θεον G2316 N-ASM  και G2532 CONJ  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ην    λογος G3056 N-NSM 

Jesus as the only-begotten God in John 1:18 was supported by the original wordings of the oldest papyrus, the papyrus 66, the manuscript contains John 1:1–6:11, 6:35b–14:26, 29–30; 15:2–26; 16:2–4, 6–7; 16:10–20:20, 22–23; 20:25–21:9, 12, 17. It is one of the oldest well-preserved New Testament manuscripts known to exist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_6 ... 20remained.

Followed by papyrus 75, is an early Greek New Testament manuscript written on papyrus containing text from the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53, and John 1:1–15:8.1  It is generally described as "the most significant" papyrus of the New Testament to be discovered so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

Yes, there are various reading about "Son" but those manuscripts were not the oldest.

Well, then, what do those manuscripts actually say about John 1:1c and John 1:18?

Not the oldest means, might be prone to copyist mistakes.
It was labelled various reading but the P66 and P75 were labelled original wordings.

Way back in the day copyists copied the Scriptures carefully, word-for-word. Yet there was just as much of a chance of being corrupted by a copyist then as with the more recent texts.

And that proves my point that its advantageous to rely on older manuscripts, especially when recent scholarship decide to label it as the original wordings like the P66 and P75, results of their exhaustive study.

That doesn't prove your point. I said that there is as much of a chance of being corrupted in the earlier mss as the more recent ones. When was John 8:58 changed to "before Abraham was I Am" from "before Abraham I have been"? Was that in the old mss or new ones?

[Capbook]

Well, then, what do those manuscripts actually say about John 1:1c and John 1:18?

Not the oldest means, might be prone to copyist mistakes.
It was labelled various reading but the P66 and P75 were labelled original wordings.

Way back in the day copyists copied the Scriptures carefully, word-for-word. Yet there was just as much of a chance of being corrupted by a copyist then as with the more recent texts.

And that proves my point that its advantageous to rely on older manuscripts, especially when recent scholarship decide to label it as the original wordings like the P66 and P75, results of their exhaustive study.

That doesn't prove your point. I said that there is as much of a chance of being corrupted in the earlier mss as the more recent ones. When was John 8:58 changed to "before Abraham was I Am" from "before Abraham I have been"? Was that in the old mss or new ones?

These are the Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to original languages based on older manuscripts and others through exhaustive study. If you see Strong numbers in each word, it means it is from the original wordings of Greek or Hebrew.
And it proves that the original Bible word is "I am". (Not I have been) Paraphrased always changed it when it is about Jesus, Arians heavy used of thought for thought translations.

(The Scripture 2009) Jhn 8:58 יהושע said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Aḇraham came to be, I am.”e Footnote: eSee also Jhn 1:1, Jhn 6:62, Jhn 17:5, Heb 11:26

(Apostolic Bible Polyglott+) Jhn 8:58 [2said G2036  3to them G1473 G3588  1Jesus], G*  Amen, G281  amen, G281  I say G3004  to you, G1473  Before G4250  Abraham G*  existed G1096  I G1473  am. G1510.2.1

(NAS95+) Jhn 8:58 Jesus G2424  said G3004  to them, "Truly G281 , truly G281 , I say G3004  to you, before G4250  Abraham G11 N1 was born G1096 ,  R1 I am G1510 ."

(NASB+)Jhn 8:58 Jesus G2424  said G3004  to them, “Truly G281 , truly G281  I say G3004  to you, before G4250  Abraham G11 N1 was born G1096 ,  N2 R1 I am G1510 .”

[Difflugia]

That doesn't prove your point. I said that there is as much of a chance of being corrupted in the earlier mss as the more recent ones. When was John 8:58 changed to "before Abraham was I Am" from "before Abraham I have been"? Was that in the old mss or new ones?

NA28 lists no variants affecting the ἐγὼ εἰμί in John 8:58. It has always been "I am" and never "I have been." This makes sense because it's based on a tradition that arose from the Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14, which reads, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, which means, "I am the Being," or, "I am the One who Is." The Septuagint predates the Gospel of John by several hundred years.

Incidentally, εἰμι doesn't have a perfect past ("have been") form; it was simply never written that way. The closest equivalent would have been to use imperfect past (ἐγώ ἦν, "I was [and still am]") or a different verb (ἐγώ γέγονα, "I have become").

[placebofactor]

Does anyone here have the list of Bible versions that say of John 1:1c "the word was a god"? I know there are several.

The New World Translation (NWT), used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, translates John 1:1c as "the Word was a god". Other translations with similar renderings include Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott (interlinear reading) and Goodspeed’s An American Translation.

600 other Bible versions on the market today translate John 1:1c as "the Word was God."

[tygger2]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #86]
Nearly all (600?) Bibles falsely translate YHWH as "LORD." Only a very few attempt to translate (or transliterate) it as Yahweh or Jehovah. Does that make the false translations true because they are in the vast majority? Notice Ps. 83:18 in the KJV.

[onewithhim]

Not the oldest means, might be prone to copyist mistakes.
It was labelled various reading but the P66 and P75 were labelled original wordings.

Way back in the day copyists copied the Scriptures carefully, word-for-word. Yet there was just as much of a chance of being corrupted by a copyist then as with the more recent texts.

And that proves my point that its advantageous to rely on older manuscripts, especially when recent scholarship decide to label it as the original wordings like the P66 and P75, results of their exhaustive study.

That doesn't prove your point. I said that there is as much of a chance of being corrupted in the earlier mss as the more recent ones. When was John 8:58 changed to "before Abraham was I Am" from "before Abraham I have been"? Was that in the old mss or new ones?

These are the Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to original languages based on older manuscripts and others through exhaustive study. If you see Strong numbers in each word, it means it is from the original wordings of Greek or Hebrew.
And it proves that the original Bible word is "I am". (Not I have been) Paraphrased always changed it when it is about Jesus, Arians heavy used of thought for thought translations.

I beg to differ. Jesus wouldn't have used such sloppy Greek. He clearly said "I have been." There is no paraphrasing there except in your version of "I Am." You condemn paraphrasing and yet your examples are rife with it.

[Difflugia]

I beg to differ. Jesus wouldn't have used such sloppy Greek. He clearly said "I have been."

"I have been" can't be said in Classical Greek, at least not with the verb εἰμί. He could possibly have said something else and meant "I have been," but that would hardly be "clearly," now, would it?

There is no paraphrasing there except in your version of "I Am." You condemn paraphrasing and yet your examples are rife with it.

Ἐγὼ εἰμί is first person, singular, present tense, indicative. It means, "I am."

[tygger2]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #89]
Yes, ego eimi is literally "I am" in Greek. The real point is that Exodus 3:14 is more literally "I will be."
So when translators chose to put "I am" in capitals and refer it to Exodus 3:14, they were simply promoting their desire to prove the trinity.