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.

[servant1]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1]

1822-Abner Kneeland NT translation where he compares Greek and English side by side to prove a god is correct.(New test in Gr and English)
New Testament an improved version-1808
Literal translation of NT-1863
Concise commentary-R.Young-1885

there are a few-i understand about 20 translations minimum in history.

[Capbook]

The point is that the same words are used at John 1:1b and Acts 28:3-6, yet John 1:1b is mistranslated into "was God." To be in harmony with each other, Acts and John 1:1b should both say "a god." The Greek words are the same.

I believe the mistranslation happen when we insert "a" in John 1:1. The NASB has been updated to the NASB 2020, a word for word translation which further improves accuracy where possible, modernizes language, and improves readability while maintaining faithful accuracy to the original texts. And besides comparing those text of different context and not related is unfitting.

[/quote
You have been apprised of the reason the words are "inserted" into a verse. The King James and others insert words thousands of times, and this is necessary to set forth the meaning of a particular verse. We don't say "Snoopy is dog." We say "Snoopy is A dog," don't we? In the Greek, the meaning is taken for granted, as people would understand the word with no article as "A" god. It is not a "mistranslation" to insert the "a" into the verse. It is following the rules of translating Greek into English. There cannot be a literal word-for-word rendering.

The Westcott and Hort NT titled, "The New Testament in the Original Greek", following it's original textual construction of the verse, it says, "and God was the Word", how would you insert the "a"?

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 G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM 

The Emphatic Diaglott, Containing the Greek Text of What is Commonly Styled the New Testament renders John 1:1b as "the word was a god."

Note, that the Emphatic Diaglott is a interlinear translation, while the Wescott and Hort is not a translation but an original Greek of New Testament. That would be "translation" vs "original Bible word." Quite a big difference.

The Emphatic Diaglott is primarily known for its interlinear, word-for-word translation of the Greek text of the New Testament, alongside a full English translation.https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

[onewithhim]

I believe the mistranslation happen when we insert "a" in John 1:1. The NASB has been updated to the NASB 2020, a word for word translation which further improves accuracy where possible, modernizes language, and improves readability while maintaining faithful accuracy to the original texts. And besides comparing those text of different context and not related is unfitting.

[/quote
You have been apprised of the reason the words are "inserted" into a verse. The King James and others insert words thousands of times, and this is necessary to set forth the meaning of a particular verse. We don't say "Snoopy is dog." We say "Snoopy is A dog," don't we? In the Greek, the meaning is taken for granted, as people would understand the word with no article as "A" god. It is not a "mistranslation" to insert the "a" into the verse. It is following the rules of translating Greek into English. There cannot be a literal word-for-word rendering.

The Westcott and Hort NT titled, "The New Testament in the Original Greek", following it's original textual construction of the verse, it says, "and God was the Word", how would you insert the "a"?

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 G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM 

The Emphatic Diaglott, Containing the Greek Text of What is Commonly Styled the New Testament renders John 1:1b as "the word was a god."

Note, that the Emphatic Diaglott is a interlinear translation, while the Wescott and Hort is not a translation but an original Greek of New Testament. That would be "translation" vs "original Bible word." Quite a big difference.

The Emphatic Diaglott is primarily known for its interlinear, word-for-word translation of the Greek text of the New Testament, alongside a full English translation.https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

Can't we call ANY Bible version a translation into English? You say that the Emphatic Diaglott is a "word-for-word" translation. You can't get any closer to the original meaning than that. Explain why we can't call the ESV or the NASB translations.

[Capbook]

The Westcott and Hort NT titled, "The New Testament in the Original Greek", following it's original textual construction of the verse, it says, "and God was the Word", how would you insert the "a"?

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 G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM 

The Emphatic Diaglott, Containing the Greek Text of What is Commonly Styled the New Testament renders John 1:1b as "the word was a god."

Note, that the Emphatic Diaglott is a interlinear translation, while the Wescott and Hort is not a translation but an original Greek of New Testament. That would be "translation" vs "original Bible word." Quite a big difference.

The Emphatic Diaglott is primarily known for its interlinear, word-for-word translation of the Greek text of the New Testament, alongside a full English translation.https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

Can't we call ANY Bible version a translation into English? You say that the Emphatic Diaglott is a "word-for-word" translation. You can't get any closer to the original meaning than that. Explain why we can't call the ESV or the NASB translations.

ESV and NASB are literal word for word Bible translations.
But Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is the original Greek of the NT.

[onewithhim]

The Emphatic Diaglott, Containing the Greek Text of What is Commonly Styled the New Testament renders John 1:1b as "the word was a god."

Note, that the Emphatic Diaglott is a interlinear translation, while the Wescott and Hort is not a translation but an original Greek of New Testament. That would be "translation" vs "original Bible word." Quite a big difference.

The Emphatic Diaglott is primarily known for its interlinear, word-for-word translation of the Greek text of the New Testament, alongside a full English translation.https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

Can't we call ANY Bible version a translation into English? You say that the Emphatic Diaglott is a "word-for-word" translation. You can't get any closer to the original meaning than that. Explain why we can't call the ESV or the NASB translations.

ESV and NASB are literal word for word Bible translations.
But Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is the original Greek of the NT.

So are the Interlinear Bible and the Emphatic Diaglott.

[Capbook]

Note, that the Emphatic Diaglott is a interlinear translation, while the Wescott and Hort is not a translation but an original Greek of New Testament. That would be "translation" vs "original Bible word." Quite a big difference.

The Emphatic Diaglott is primarily known for its interlinear, word-for-word translation of the Greek text of the New Testament, alongside a full English translation.https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

Can't we call ANY Bible version a translation into English? You say that the Emphatic Diaglott is a "word-for-word" translation. You can't get any closer to the original meaning than that. Explain why we can't call the ESV or the NASB translations.

ESV and NASB are literal word for word Bible translations.
But Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is the original Greek of the NT.

So are the Interlinear Bible and the Emphatic Diaglott.

I believe Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear is not a neutral ground for your support because it is your Church's Watch Tower Society that sold the Diaglott inexpensively (offering it free of charge from 1990). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_Diaglott

[onewithhim]

Can't we call ANY Bible version a translation into English? You say that the Emphatic Diaglott is a "word-for-word" translation. You can't get any closer to the original meaning than that. Explain why we can't call the ESV or the NASB translations.

ESV and NASB are literal word for word Bible translations.
But Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is the original Greek of the NT.

So are the Interlinear Bible and the Emphatic Diaglott.

I believe Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear is not a neutral ground for your support because it is your Church's Watch Tower Society that sold the Diaglott inexpensively (offering it free of charge from 1990). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_Diaglott

The Emphatic Diaglott is not a Watchtower Bible translation. They simply offered it to the public. Just like they do with the King James Version. They offer it on the website, but it isn't a product of the Watchtower.

[Capbook]

ESV and NASB are literal word for word Bible translations.
But Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is the original Greek of the NT.

So are the Interlinear Bible and the Emphatic Diaglott.

I believe Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear is not a neutral ground for your support because it is your Church's Watch Tower Society that sold the Diaglott inexpensively (offering it free of charge from 1990). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_Diaglott

The Emphatic Diaglott is not a Watchtower Bible translation. They simply offered it to the public. Just like they do with the King James Version. They offer it on the website, but it isn't a product of the Watchtower.

Yes, but your church helps disseminate the translation by selling it low-priced.
In anyways your church was involved promoting it as it supports your church beliefs.

Can you check the link below, it doesn't say about what you've said.
The 1864 Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 as: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him". https://www.google.com/search?q=1864+em ... e&ie=UTF-8

I present to you again, Westcott and Hort the original Greek of the New Testament, that show beyond doubt in Greek that Jesus is God. See below;

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

[onewithhim]

So are the Interlinear Bible and the Emphatic Diaglott.

I believe Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear is not a neutral ground for your support because it is your Church's Watch Tower Society that sold the Diaglott inexpensively (offering it free of charge from 1990). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_Diaglott

The Emphatic Diaglott is not a Watchtower Bible translation. They simply offered it to the public. Just like they do with the King James Version. They offer it on the website, but it isn't a product of the Watchtower.

Yes, but your church helps disseminate the translation by selling it low-priced.
In anyways your church was involved promoting it as it supports your church beliefs.
eclared him". https://www.google.com/search?q=1864+em ... e&ie=UTF-8

I present to you again, Westcott and Hort the original Greek of the New Testament, that show beyond doubt in Greek that Jesus is God. See below;

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 
[/q
Can you check the link below, it doesn't say about what you've said.
The 1864 Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 as: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has

The Watchtower doesn't sell any Bibles or books any more. All are free. And so what if my church promotes a translation that supports our beliefs? Don't you promote your lexicons and who ever writes them? What is the difference?

The Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 with "the only begotten God?" I don't think so. My copy of the Emphatic Diaglott says: "God no one has seen ever: the only begotten SON that being in the bosom of the Father he has made known." Check out the list of 16 versions that say "the only begotten SON," once again, if you would. Both the Interlinear Bible and the Emphatic Diaglott say the "only begotten Son," and they are word-for-word translations.

[Capbook]

I believe Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear is not a neutral ground for your support because it is your Church's Watch Tower Society that sold the Diaglott inexpensively (offering it free of charge from 1990). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_Diaglott

The Emphatic Diaglott is not a Watchtower Bible translation. They simply offered it to the public. Just like they do with the King James Version. They offer it on the website, but it isn't a product of the Watchtower.

Yes, but your church helps disseminate the translation by selling it low-priced.
In anyways your church was involved promoting it as it supports your church beliefs.
eclared him". https://www.google.com/search?q=1864+em ... e&ie=UTF-8

I present to you again, Westcott and Hort the original Greek of the New Testament, that show beyond doubt in Greek that Jesus is God. See below;

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 
[/q
Can you check the link below, it doesn't say about what you've said.
The 1864 Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 as: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has

The Watchtower doesn't sell any Bibles or books any more. All are free. And so what if my church promotes a translation that supports our beliefs? Don't you promote your lexicons and who ever writes them? What is the difference?

The Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 with "the only begotten God?" I don't think so. My copy of the Emphatic Diaglott says: "God no one has seen ever: the only begotten SON that being in the bosom of the Father he has made known." Check out the list of 16 versions that say "the only begotten SON," once again, if you would. Both the Interlinear Bible and the Emphatic Diaglott say the "only begotten Son," and they are word-for-word translations.

I usually quote evidence not from our church materials, to give weight on proofs presented. Our materials are self-serving, bears lesser leverage to the discussion.

Did you click the link provided?
Do that mean that there was an alteration made on 1864 copy of it?
I happened to find the PDF of 1864 Emphatic Diaglott, are you kind enough to post from your copy the English translation of John 1:1?