John 1:1 Not "A" God

John 1:1

Here is how to refute the Jehovah's Witnesses' lie that John 1:1 says Jesus was merely "a god."

Jehovah's Witness - In my New World Translation, John 1:1 doesn't say "the Word was God." It says, "the word was a god."

Christian - Do you see how that "a" in your translation makes Jesus - the "Word" - someone less than the Creator God, but without the word "a", Jesus is the Creator God?
Jehovah's Witness - Yes.

Christian - So the word "a" makes a big difference, doesn't it?
Jehovah's Witness - Yes it does.

Christian - Now, all English New Testaments are translations of the original Greek text. If the original Greek has the "a", intentionally deleting it to make the English translation say "the Word was God" would be a serious sin, wouldn't it, since it would be twisting the Bible to say that a creature is the Creator God?
Jehovah's Witness - That's right.

Christian - And if the original Greek doesn't have the "a", intentionally adding it to make the English translation say "the Word was a god" would also be a serious sin since it would be twisting the Bible to say that the Creator God isn't the Creator God, wouldn't it?
Jehovah's Witness - Yes.

Christian - Could you please find John 1 in your Kingdom Interlinear?
Jehovah's Witness - Ok, I found it (He will be on this page, copied below).

Christian - Is "a" in John 1:1 in the original Greek?
Jehovah's Witness - No it isn't.

Christian - So it's been added, hasn't it?
Jehovah's Witness - Yes.

Christian - So the translators of the New World Translation have committed a serious sin, haven't they?
Jehovah's Witness - Yes.

Christian - Do you know what they claim is their reason for adding the "a" to John 1:1?
Jehovah's Witness - No I don't.

Christian - Please google "John 1:1 biblehub.com interlinear," click on the first search result, and read for us the last four words of John 1:1.
Jehovah's Witness - "God was the Word" (copied below from this page).

Christian - In the clause, "Man bites the dog," English grammar determines the subject and the object by the order of the nouns relative to the verb, from left to right. Because "man" comes before the verb, it is the man who bites the dog, and not the dog biting the man. In Greek grammar, a noun in the nominative is typically the subject of a clause. But when a clause is equating two nouns, both of which are in the nominative, Greek grammar places the article (eg. "ho" (the) above) in front of only the subject to identify it as the subject of the clause. In the red box above, the "N-NMS" designations under both "God" and "Word" indicate both words as "Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular." To identify "Logos" (Word) as the subject of the clause, the article "ho" (the) is placed only in front of "Logos" (Word). Another article is not placed and should not be placed in front of "Theos" (God) because it is the predicate, not the subject, of this clause, and the correct translation of this clause is, "The Word was God." Does that make sense?
Jehovah's Witness - Yes it does, but why did they say they add "a" to John 1:1?

Christian - They claimed that the indefinite article "a" needs to be inserted in front of "god" in English because "Theos" (God) is not preceded by an article in the original Greek, but three evidences refute their claim. First, the notion that the absence of the article before a Greek noun requires the insertion of an indefinite article in English is farfetched to anyone who knows anything about Greek grammar. Second, if they sincerely believed their own claim, they at least would have translated the clause from left to right as usual as, "a God was the Word." The fact that they recognized "Logos" (Word) as the subject of the clause even though it comes after the verb and recognized "Theos" (God) as the predicate even though it comes before the verb and correctly reversed their order in their English translation indicates that they were well aware that the absence of the article before "Logos" (Word) was to identify it as the predicate of the clause, not to suddenly require the insertion of an indefinite article in English. Do you see this?
Jehovah's Witness - Yes.

Christian - Third, could you please read John 1:6 in your translation up to the word "God"?
Jehovah's Witness - "There came a man who was sent as a representative of God."

Christian - Does it say, "of God" or "of a God"?
Jehovah's Witness - "of God."

Christian - Well, this is where the Greek word for "God" next appears after John 1:1, and there is no article in front of it here either. If they sincerely believed that its absence requires inserting an indefinite article in English, they would have inserted it here as well to make it say "of a God." Did they?
Jehovah's Witness - No.

Christian - Could you please read John 1:13 in your translation?
Jehovah's Witness - "And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God."

Christian - Does it say, "from God" or "from a God"?
Jehovah's Witness - "from God."

Christian - There is no article before the Greek word for "God" here either. Could you please read John 1:18 in your translation up to the word "God"?
Jehovah's Witness - "No man has seen God."

Christian - Does it say, "seen God" or "seen a God"?
Jehovah's Witness - "seen God."

Christian - There is no article in front of the Greek word for "God" here either, so do you see how their claim that the absence of the article requires inserting the indefinite article "a" in front of the word for "God" in John 1:1 in English is contradicted also by their own translations before they makes it out of even just the first chapter of John?
Jehovah's Witness - Yes.