Is the NWT translation of John 1:1 correct?

[Justin108]

John 1:1 (NWT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 (MEV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Why does the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1 differ from virtually every other translation? Which is the correct translation of John 1:1? "The Word was a god" or "The Word was God"?

[JehovahsWitness]

[JehovahsWitness]

[marco]

John 1:1 (NWT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 (MEV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Why does the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1 differ from virtually every other translation? Which is the correct translation of John 1:1? "The Word was a god" or "The Word was God"?

Settling for God or god is not the biggest difficulty. How is human understanding to make sense of the "WORD" being in the beginning? What is meant by beginning? What is meant by "logos" being "with" God?

It would seem that the balance of the sentence, with God and was God, requires both to be capitalised. If questions of grammar arise it would be a brave person who based a theology on a grammatical nicety. I recall that we would spend an entire lecture debating why Virgil used an indicative rather than a subjunctive when describing an oak tree. But were the outcome to determine Christ's deity, I think we would want more evidence than grammatical.

[2timothy316]

The simple way to look it is this way.

Ton/Ho Theon = The Almighty God.
Theos = a god

We know that theos can be translated either as God or a god. http://biblehub.com/greek/2316.htm

Now that we have established that which one is it? So lets put it another way.

Example: In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with [Almighty God] and the Word was [Almighty God].

First the above makes no sense.

Interestingly the definite article [or the/τὸν] precedes God when referring to the first God in the sentence but the next definite article precedes the word Word but not the second use of the word god. Thus the second god is not the God but a god. Yet the second god [or mighty one] is The Word. It just so simple I don't know why people get so bent out of shape.

In Philippians 3:19 says that there are those that make their belly their God. If we are to use the same crazy translation most use for god in John 1:1 does that make a person's stomach, Jesus?

[bjs]

[JehovahsWitness]

[onewithhim]

John 1:1 (NWT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 (MEV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Why does the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1 differ from virtually every other translation? Which is the correct translation of John 1:1? "The Word was a god" or "The Word was God"?

Settling for God or god is not the biggest difficulty. How is human understanding to make sense of the "WORD" being in the beginning? What is meant by beginning? What is meant by "logos" being "with" God?

It would seem that the balance of the sentence, with God and was God, requires both to be capitalised. If questions of grammar arise it would be a brave person who based a theology on a grammatical nicety. I recall that we would spend an entire lecture debating why Virgil used an indicative rather than a subjunctive when describing an oak tree. But were the outcome to determine Christ's deity, I think we would want more evidence than grammatical.

I believe that words are highly important. We have two completely different views of Snoopy, for example, when comparing the following wordings:

Snoopy is THE dog.
Snoopy is A dog.

It is vital to understand the rules of grammar so that we can understand if Snoopy is the ONLY dog, or if he is just one of many.

I don't know why you insist that both "gods" in John 1:1 should be capitalized. In Greek there are no capitalizations or punctuation, and that is exactly why the rules for definite and indefinite articles prevails.

[onewithhim]

[marco]

The simple way to look it is this way.

Constructing deep theology from a grammatical consideration is unwise. The point being made is about grammatical usage, but there are exceptions to every rule. When we translate from an ancient language we always encounter singularities, and this place in the text, where the "WORD" is being generated from first principles is a good place for an exception in the use of a word!