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]

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.


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?

I quote material from outside my church also, and my own observances (which happen to coincide with the Watchtower's). I don't know about the 1864 version of the Emphatic Diaglott being different from the 1891 translation. Why don't you compare the two?

This is the Emphatic Diaglott's rendering of John 1:1: "In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the word."

[Capbook]

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.


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?

I quote material from outside my church also, and my own observances (which happen to coincide with the Watchtower's). I don't know about the 1864 version of the Emphatic Diaglott being different from the 1891 translation. Why don't you compare the two?

This is the Emphatic Diaglott's rendering of John 1:1: "In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the word."

The original PDF of 1864 Ephatic Diaglott speaks of John 1:1;
"In the beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."

That is the English translation placed at the right of the Greek, and it really differs with yours. I believe there's really alterations or revisions made from the original.

[tygger2]

Trinitarian apologist Bowser (What Every Jehovah's Witness Should Know) concludes his misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule with this further misinformation:

"Incidentally, the LITERAL translation that accompanies the Greek text [of John 1:1c] in the Emphatic Diaglott also bears witness to the fact that `the Logos (Word) was God.'" - pp. 57-58.

This is completely dishonest and Bowser must know that. He also knows that an uninformed person glancing at John 1:1 in the Diaglott would probably agree with his dishonest statement.

As you may know (and Bowser certainly knows), The Emphatic Diaglott is an interlinear translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It has the literal, word-for-word translation along with the Greek text on the left-hand page and there it has "and a god was the Word" at John 1:1c. On the right-hand page it has an emphatic translation which is "based upon that in the left-hand column."

"In this [right-hand] column the EMPHATIC SIGNS are introduced, by which the Greek words of Emphasis are designated ....
".... [This peculiar system of emphasis] of the Greek language cannot be properly expressed in English except by the use of typographical signs, such as, Initial Capital Letters, italics, SMALL CAPITALS, and CAPITALS." - p. 8, Diaglott introduction.

So, you see, the literal left-hand column for John 1:1 in the Diaglott uses capitalization according to standard English usage: "In a beginning...the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

But, in the right-hand column the translator uses capitalization to show what degree of emphasis was being put upon the various words in the original NT Greek!

Therefore, in the right-hand column it reads: "In the Beginning...the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."

Notice that "LOGOS" is all capitals and the first "GOD" is also all capitals. This merely shows a certain degree of emphasis found in the original Greek! Now notice the second "God" has only an initial capital letter. This, too, merely denotes another type of emphasis found in the original NT Greek!

Also, Bowser has dishonestly "quoted" the Diaglott: "the Logos (Word) was God." He didn't capitalize "LOGOS" as it actually was in the Diaglott (all capitals) but did capitalize "God" as it appeared—the second time (with an initial capital letter)...the first usage which actually denoted the only true God was in all capitals: "GOD."

To show that "God" in the right-hand column does not have to mean "the only true God," let's look at Acts 28:6 in the Diaglott. The literal left-hand column says: "they said, A god him to be." But the emphatic right-hand column says: "they said, `He is a God.'" I don't think any Bible translator has decided that these pagans were calling Paul "the only true God." (Check all translations.) It is clear (as shown in the left-hand column) that the Diaglott intends "he is a god," but, because of the method used to show Greek emphasis, "god" is written with an initial capital letter in the emphatic right-hand column!

[Capbook]

Trinitarian apologist Bowser (What Every Jehovah's Witness Should Know) concludes his misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule with this further misinformation:

"Incidentally, the LITERAL translation that accompanies the Greek text [of John 1:1c] in the Emphatic Diaglott also bears witness to the fact that `the Logos (Word) was God.'" - pp. 57-58.

This is completely dishonest and Bowser must know that. He also knows that an uninformed person glancing at John 1:1 in the Diaglott would probably agree with his dishonest statement.

As you may know (and Bowser certainly knows), The Emphatic Diaglott is an interlinear translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It has the literal, word-for-word translation along with the Greek text on the left-hand page and there it has "and a god was the Word" at John 1:1c. On the right-hand page it has an emphatic translation which is "based upon that in the left-hand column."

"In this [right-hand] column the EMPHATIC SIGNS are introduced, by which the Greek words of Emphasis are designated ....
".... [This peculiar system of emphasis] of the Greek language cannot be properly expressed in English except by the use of typographical signs, such as, Initial Capital Letters, italics, SMALL CAPITALS, and CAPITALS." - p. 8, Diaglott introduction.

So, you see, the literal left-hand column for John 1:1 in the Diaglott uses capitalization according to standard English usage: "In a beginning...the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

But, in the right-hand column the translator uses capitalization to show what degree of emphasis was being put upon the various words in the original NT Greek!

Therefore, in the right-hand column it reads: "In the Beginning...the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."

Notice that "LOGOS" is all capitals and the first "GOD" is also all capitals. This merely shows a certain degree of emphasis found in the original Greek! Now notice the second "God" has only an initial capital letter. This, too, merely denotes another type of emphasis found in the original NT Greek!

Also, Bowser has dishonestly "quoted" the Diaglott: "the Logos (Word) was God." He didn't capitalize "LOGOS" as it actually was in the Diaglott (all capitals) but did capitalize "God" as it appeared—the second time (with an initial capital letter)...the first usage which actually denoted the only true God was in all capitals: "GOD."

To show that "God" in the right-hand column does not have to mean "the only true God," let's look at Acts 28:6 in the Diaglott. The literal left-hand column says: "they said, A god him to be." But the emphatic right-hand column says: "they said, `He is a God.'" I don't think any Bible translator has decided that these pagans were calling Paul "the only true God." (Check all translations.) It is clear (as shown in the left-hand column) that the Diaglott intends "he is a god," but, because of the method used to show Greek emphasis, "god" is written with an initial capital letter in the emphatic right-hand column!

I believe the matter in question is the "a" in John 1:1, GOD and God are both had the uppercase G.
Benjamin Wilson the author of the Diaglott translates the Greek in English as "and the LOGOS was God," and that proves that it's the way he understand it.

With regards to Acts 28:6, I believe there is no comparison, the idea of describing Paul as "a god" was from the natives and not from the author of the book. While John 1:1 was from author himself, and it speaks about the Word(Jesus) and the other about Paul.

[onewithhim]

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.


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?

I quote material from outside my church also, and my own observances (which happen to coincide with the Watchtower's). I don't know about the 1864 version of the Emphatic Diaglott being different from the 1891 translation. Why don't you compare the two?

This is the Emphatic Diaglott's rendering of John 1:1: "In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the word."

The original PDF of 1864 Ephatic Diaglott speaks of John 1:1;
"In the beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."

That is the English translation placed at the right of the Greek, and it really differs with yours. I believe there's really alterations or revisions made from the original.

If there are, it is your rendering. The Emphatic Diaglott has the English right under the Greek, and the English that is translated from the Greek says "and the Logos was a god." That is no alteration or revision. The alterations are on your end.

[onewithhim]

Trinitarian apologist Bowser (What Every Jehovah's Witness Should Know) concludes his misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule with this further misinformation:

"Incidentally, the LITERAL translation that accompanies the Greek text [of John 1:1c] in the Emphatic Diaglott also bears witness to the fact that `the Logos (Word) was God.'" - pp. 57-58.

This is completely dishonest and Bowser must know that. He also knows that an uninformed person glancing at John 1:1 in the Diaglott would probably agree with his dishonest statement.

As you may know (and Bowser certainly knows), The Emphatic Diaglott is an interlinear translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It has the literal, word-for-word translation along with the Greek text on the left-hand page and there it has "and a god was the Word" at John 1:1c. On the right-hand page it has an emphatic translation which is "based upon that in the left-hand column."

"In this [right-hand] column the EMPHATIC SIGNS are introduced, by which the Greek words of Emphasis are designated ....
".... [This peculiar system of emphasis] of the Greek language cannot be properly expressed in English except by the use of typographical signs, such as, Initial Capital Letters, italics, SMALL CAPITALS, and CAPITALS." - p. 8, Diaglott introduction.

So, you see, the literal left-hand column for John 1:1 in the Diaglott uses capitalization according to standard English usage: "In a beginning...the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

But, in the right-hand column the translator uses capitalization to show what degree of emphasis was being put upon the various words in the original NT Greek!

Therefore, in the right-hand column it reads: "In the Beginning...the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."

Notice that "LOGOS" is all capitals and the first "GOD" is also all capitals. This merely shows a certain degree of emphasis found in the original Greek! Now notice the second "God" has only an initial capital letter. This, too, merely denotes another type of emphasis found in the original NT Greek!

Also, Bowser has dishonestly "quoted" the Diaglott: "the Logos (Word) was God." He didn't capitalize "LOGOS" as it actually was in the Diaglott (all capitals) but did capitalize "God" as it appeared—the second time (with an initial capital letter)...the first usage which actually denoted the only true God was in all capitals: "GOD."

To show that "God" in the right-hand column does not have to mean "the only true God," let's look at Acts 28:6 in the Diaglott. The literal left-hand column says: "they said, A god him to be." But the emphatic right-hand column says: "they said, `He is a God.'" I don't think any Bible translator has decided that these pagans were calling Paul "the only true God." (Check all translations.) It is clear (as shown in the left-hand column) that the Diaglott intends "he is a god," but, because of the method used to show Greek emphasis, "god" is written with an initial capital letter in the emphatic right-hand column!

I believe the matter in question is the "a" in John 1:1, GOD and God are both had the uppercase G.
Benjamin Wilson the author of the Diaglott translates the Greek in English as "and the LOGOS was God," and that proves that it's the way he understand it.

With regards to Acts 28:6, I believe there is no comparison, the idea of describing Paul as "a god" was from the natives and not from the author of the book. While John 1:1 was from author himself, and it speaks about the Word(Jesus) and the other about Paul.

Maybe you can re-read post #53. It seems that you aren't getting the sense of what Tygger is saying. Capital letters don't necessarily mean what is intended. The capital "G" of "the Logos was God" is not really there; just the mental inclination of a man. It is actually a small "g" without the article. It is necessarily rendered as "a god."

You don't get Acts 28:6. It is being referred to to show that Paul was referred to as "God," and yet no one would have been calling Paul "God." So that verse includes "He is a God," but meaning "He is a god," adhering strictly to the rules of translation from Greek to English, so why wouldn't that be the same rendering as in John 1:1?

[Capbook]

Trinitarian apologist Bowser (What Every Jehovah's Witness Should Know) concludes his misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule with this further misinformation:

"Incidentally, the LITERAL translation that accompanies the Greek text [of John 1:1c] in the Emphatic Diaglott also bears witness to the fact that `the Logos (Word) was God.'" - pp. 57-58.

This is completely dishonest and Bowser must know that. He also knows that an uninformed person glancing at John 1:1 in the Diaglott would probably agree with his dishonest statement.

As you may know (and Bowser certainly knows), The Emphatic Diaglott is an interlinear translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It has the literal, word-for-word translation along with the Greek text on the left-hand page and there it has "and a god was the Word" at John 1:1c. On the right-hand page it has an emphatic translation which is "based upon that in the left-hand column."

"In this [right-hand] column the EMPHATIC SIGNS are introduced, by which the Greek words of Emphasis are designated ....
".... [This peculiar system of emphasis] of the Greek language cannot be properly expressed in English except by the use of typographical signs, such as, Initial Capital Letters, italics, SMALL CAPITALS, and CAPITALS." - p. 8, Diaglott introduction.

So, you see, the literal left-hand column for John 1:1 in the Diaglott uses capitalization according to standard English usage: "In a beginning...the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

But, in the right-hand column the translator uses capitalization to show what degree of emphasis was being put upon the various words in the original NT Greek!

Therefore, in the right-hand column it reads: "In the Beginning...the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."

Notice that "LOGOS" is all capitals and the first "GOD" is also all capitals. This merely shows a certain degree of emphasis found in the original Greek! Now notice the second "God" has only an initial capital letter. This, too, merely denotes another type of emphasis found in the original NT Greek!

Also, Bowser has dishonestly "quoted" the Diaglott: "the Logos (Word) was God." He didn't capitalize "LOGOS" as it actually was in the Diaglott (all capitals) but did capitalize "God" as it appeared—the second time (with an initial capital letter)...the first usage which actually denoted the only true God was in all capitals: "GOD."

To show that "God" in the right-hand column does not have to mean "the only true God," let's look at Acts 28:6 in the Diaglott. The literal left-hand column says: "they said, A god him to be." But the emphatic right-hand column says: "they said, `He is a God.'" I don't think any Bible translator has decided that these pagans were calling Paul "the only true God." (Check all translations.) It is clear (as shown in the left-hand column) that the Diaglott intends "he is a god," but, because of the method used to show Greek emphasis, "god" is written with an initial capital letter in the emphatic right-hand column!

I believe the matter in question is the "a" in John 1:1, GOD and God are both had the uppercase G.
Benjamin Wilson the author of the Diaglott translates the Greek in English as "and the LOGOS was God," and that proves that it's the way he understand it.

With regards to Acts 28:6, I believe there is no comparison, the idea of describing Paul as "a god" was from the natives and not from the author of the book. While John 1:1 was from author himself, and it speaks about the Word(Jesus) and the other about Paul.

Maybe you can re-read post #53. It seems that you aren't getting the sense of what Tygger is saying. Capital letters don't necessarily mean what is intended. The capital "G" of "the Logos was God" is not really there; just the mental inclination of a man. It is actually a small "g" without the article. It is necessarily rendered as "a god."

You don't get Acts 28:6. It is being referred to to show that Paul was referred to as "God," and yet no one would have been calling Paul "God." So that verse includes "He is a God," but meaning "He is a god," adhering strictly to the rules of translation from Greek to English, so why wouldn't that be the same rendering as in John 1:1?

It seems you don't accurately read Tygger's post, I bolded and colored blue above, that is what really written in the original 1864 Emphatic Diaglott of Benjamin Wilson in PDF form. About Tygger's opinion about "GOD or God" differences, I think he must support it with evidence not just his own interpretation. And I am confused, JWs interpret Jesus as "a god" not "God" but when "God" appears, argue that it has supposed to be "GOD". Sound confusing. It's obvious that Tygger had read the original and you have not, you can visit it, ask him the link.

[onewithhim]

Trinitarian apologist Bowser (What Every Jehovah's Witness Should Know) concludes his misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule with this further misinformation:

"Incidentally, the LITERAL translation that accompanies the Greek text [of John 1:1c] in the Emphatic Diaglott also bears witness to the fact that `the Logos (Word) was God.'" - pp. 57-58.

This is completely dishonest and Bowser must know that. He also knows that an uninformed person glancing at John 1:1 in the Diaglott would probably agree with his dishonest statement.

As you may know (and Bowser certainly knows), The Emphatic Diaglott is an interlinear translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It has the literal, word-for-word translation along with the Greek text on the left-hand page and there it has "and a god was the Word" at John 1:1c. On the right-hand page it has an emphatic translation which is "based upon that in the left-hand column."

"In this [right-hand] column the EMPHATIC SIGNS are introduced, by which the Greek words of Emphasis are designated ....
".... [This peculiar system of emphasis] of the Greek language cannot be properly expressed in English except by the use of typographical signs, such as, Initial Capital Letters, italics, SMALL CAPITALS, and CAPITALS." - p. 8, Diaglott introduction.

So, you see, the literal left-hand column for John 1:1 in the Diaglott uses capitalization according to standard English usage: "In a beginning...the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

But, in the right-hand column the translator uses capitalization to show what degree of emphasis was being put upon the various words in the original NT Greek!

Therefore, in the right-hand column it reads: "In the Beginning...the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."

Notice that "LOGOS" is all capitals and the first "GOD" is also all capitals. This merely shows a certain degree of emphasis found in the original Greek! Now notice the second "God" has only an initial capital letter. This, too, merely denotes another type of emphasis found in the original NT Greek!

Also, Bowser has dishonestly "quoted" the Diaglott: "the Logos (Word) was God." He didn't capitalize "LOGOS" as it actually was in the Diaglott (all capitals) but did capitalize "God" as it appeared—the second time (with an initial capital letter)...the first usage which actually denoted the only true God was in all capitals: "GOD."

To show that "God" in the right-hand column does not have to mean "the only true God," let's look at Acts 28:6 in the Diaglott. The literal left-hand column says: "they said, A god him to be." But the emphatic right-hand column says: "they said, `He is a God.'" I don't think any Bible translator has decided that these pagans were calling Paul "the only true God." (Check all translations.) It is clear (as shown in the left-hand column) that the Diaglott intends "he is a god," but, because of the method used to show Greek emphasis, "god" is written with an initial capital letter in the emphatic right-hand column!

I believe the matter in question is the "a" in John 1:1, GOD and God are both had the uppercase G.
Benjamin Wilson the author of the Diaglott translates the Greek in English as "and the LOGOS was God," and that proves that it's the way he understand it.

With regards to Acts 28:6, I believe there is no comparison, the idea of describing Paul as "a god" was from the natives and not from the author of the book. While John 1:1 was from author himself, and it speaks about the Word(Jesus) and the other about Paul.

Maybe you can re-read post #53. It seems that you aren't getting the sense of what Tygger is saying. Capital letters don't necessarily mean what is intended. The capital "G" of "the Logos was God" is not really there; just the mental inclination of a man. It is actually a small "g" without the article. It is necessarily rendered as "a god."

You don't get Acts 28:6. It is being referred to to show that Paul was referred to as "God," and yet no one would have been calling Paul "God." So that verse includes "He is a God," but meaning "He is a god," adhering strictly to the rules of translation from Greek to English, so why wouldn't that be the same rendering as in John 1:1?

It seems you don't accurately read Tygger's post, I bolded and colored blue above, that is what really written in the original 1864 Emphatic Diaglott of Benjamin Wilson in PDF form. About Tygger's opinion about "GOD or God" differences, I think he must support it with evidence not just his own interpretation. And I am confused, JWs interpret Jesus as "a god" not "God" but when "God" appears, argue that it has supposed to be "GOD". Sound confusing. It's obvious that Tygger had read the original and you have not, you can visit it, ask him the link.

I am not confused. Tygger was trying to show you that the words in question should be "a god," NOT "God." You have failed to understand what Tygger was saying. Think about it some more before you continue to make erroneous judgments.

[Capbook]

Trinitarian apologist Bowser (What Every Jehovah's Witness Should Know) concludes his misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule with this further misinformation:

"Incidentally, the LITERAL translation that accompanies the Greek text [of John 1:1c] in the Emphatic Diaglott also bears witness to the fact that `the Logos (Word) was God.'" - pp. 57-58.

This is completely dishonest and Bowser must know that. He also knows that an uninformed person glancing at John 1:1 in the Diaglott would probably agree with his dishonest statement.

As you may know (and Bowser certainly knows), The Emphatic Diaglott is an interlinear translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It has the literal, word-for-word translation along with the Greek text on the left-hand page and there it has "and a god was the Word" at John 1:1c. On the right-hand page it has an emphatic translation which is "based upon that in the left-hand column."

"In this [right-hand] column the EMPHATIC SIGNS are introduced, by which the Greek words of Emphasis are designated ....
".... [This peculiar system of emphasis] of the Greek language cannot be properly expressed in English except by the use of typographical signs, such as, Initial Capital Letters, italics, SMALL CAPITALS, and CAPITALS." - p. 8, Diaglott introduction.

So, you see, the literal left-hand column for John 1:1 in the Diaglott uses capitalization according to standard English usage: "In a beginning...the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

But, in the right-hand column the translator uses capitalization to show what degree of emphasis was being put upon the various words in the original NT Greek!

Therefore, in the right-hand column it reads: "In the Beginning...the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."

Notice that "LOGOS" is all capitals and the first "GOD" is also all capitals. This merely shows a certain degree of emphasis found in the original Greek! Now notice the second "God" has only an initial capital letter. This, too, merely denotes another type of emphasis found in the original NT Greek!

Also, Bowser has dishonestly "quoted" the Diaglott: "the Logos (Word) was God." He didn't capitalize "LOGOS" as it actually was in the Diaglott (all capitals) but did capitalize "God" as it appeared—the second time (with an initial capital letter)...the first usage which actually denoted the only true God was in all capitals: "GOD."

To show that "God" in the right-hand column does not have to mean "the only true God," let's look at Acts 28:6 in the Diaglott. The literal left-hand column says: "they said, A god him to be." But the emphatic right-hand column says: "they said, `He is a God.'" I don't think any Bible translator has decided that these pagans were calling Paul "the only true God." (Check all translations.) It is clear (as shown in the left-hand column) that the Diaglott intends "he is a god," but, because of the method used to show Greek emphasis, "god" is written with an initial capital letter in the emphatic right-hand column!

I believe the matter in question is the "a" in John 1:1, GOD and God are both had the uppercase G.
Benjamin Wilson the author of the Diaglott translates the Greek in English as "and the LOGOS was God," and that proves that it's the way he understand it.

With regards to Acts 28:6, I believe there is no comparison, the idea of describing Paul as "a god" was from the natives and not from the author of the book. While John 1:1 was from author himself, and it speaks about the Word(Jesus) and the other about Paul.

Maybe you can re-read post #53. It seems that you aren't getting the sense of what Tygger is saying. Capital letters don't necessarily mean what is intended. The capital "G" of "the Logos was God" is not really there; just the mental inclination of a man. It is actually a small "g" without the article. It is necessarily rendered as "a god."

You don't get Acts 28:6. It is being referred to to show that Paul was referred to as "God," and yet no one would have been calling Paul "God." So that verse includes "He is a God," but meaning "He is a god," adhering strictly to the rules of translation from Greek to English, so why wouldn't that be the same rendering as in John 1:1?

It seems you don't accurately read Tygger's post, I bolded and colored blue above, that is what really written in the original 1864 Emphatic Diaglott of Benjamin Wilson in PDF form. About Tygger's opinion about "GOD or God" differences, I think he must support it with evidence not just his own interpretation. And I am confused, JWs interpret Jesus as "a god" not "God" but when "God" appears, argue that it has supposed to be "GOD". Sound confusing. It's obvious that Tygger had read the original and you have not, you can visit it, ask him the link.

I am not confused. Tygger was trying to show you that the words in question should be "a god," NOT "God." You have failed to understand what Tygger was saying. Think about it some more before you continue to make erroneous judgments.

Tygger explains what was written in the left-page, and he quote the right-page the way Benjamin Wilson the author understand it and translate to, "and the LOGOS was God." Did you see what I colored blue above?

[onewithhim]

I believe the matter in question is the "a" in John 1:1, GOD and God are both had the uppercase G.
Benjamin Wilson the author of the Diaglott translates the Greek in English as "and the LOGOS was God," and that proves that it's the way he understand it.

With regards to Acts 28:6, I believe there is no comparison, the idea of describing Paul as "a god" was from the natives and not from the author of the book. While John 1:1 was from author himself, and it speaks about the Word(Jesus) and the other about Paul.

Maybe you can re-read post #53. It seems that you aren't getting the sense of what Tygger is saying. Capital letters don't necessarily mean what is intended. The capital "G" of "the Logos was God" is not really there; just the mental inclination of a man. It is actually a small "g" without the article. It is necessarily rendered as "a god."

You don't get Acts 28:6. It is being referred to to show that Paul was referred to as "God," and yet no one would have been calling Paul "God." So that verse includes "He is a God," but meaning "He is a god," adhering strictly to the rules of translation from Greek to English, so why wouldn't that be the same rendering as in John 1:1?

It seems you don't accurately read Tygger's post, I bolded and colored blue above, that is what really written in the original 1864 Emphatic Diaglott of Benjamin Wilson in PDF form. About Tygger's opinion about "GOD or God" differences, I think he must support it with evidence not just his own interpretation. And I am confused, JWs interpret Jesus as "a god" not "God" but when "God" appears, argue that it has supposed to be "GOD". Sound confusing. It's obvious that Tygger had read the original and you have not, you can visit it, ask him the link.

I am not confused. Tygger was trying to show you that the words in question should be "a god," NOT "God." You have failed to understand what Tygger was saying. Think about it some more before you continue to make erroneous judgments.

Tygger explains what was written in the left-page, and he quote the right-page the way Benjamin Wilson the author understand it and translate to, "and the LOGOS was God." Did you see what I colored blue above?

That is not what Tygger was trying to say. Read over again what he wrote. All of it, to the end.