The following is a list of variant translations of John 1:1:

Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."
Recovery Version, Living Streams Ministry, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768,
"and was himself a divine person"
Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"
Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"
La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.”
John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god
Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine
Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."
Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."
Concordant Version (Knoch) "God was the Word"
C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god
New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"
International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]
Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"
The NET Bible, "and the Word was fully God."
Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"
Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"
Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885,
"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”
Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"
Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981
“In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God.
The Message was deity.”
CEV, "the Word was truly God."
Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London
"[A] Divine Person."
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S.  (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"
Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"
Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16).  "a God"
"At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order." 21st Century NT Free
"and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal
George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"
James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"
Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"
Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature
...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."
William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"
Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine
Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
Cotton Patch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One
Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"
Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"
Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."
Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"
Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"
Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"
Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"
Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"
Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"
Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"
Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"
Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]
William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933,
"And the Word was divine."
John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"
Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"
Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament,  London, Student Movement Christian Press1931
"and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'
Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript)
"In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."
Buzzard/Hunting
“In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the
heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already
existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the
Wisdom was God’s Wisdom” (Pro. 8:22-30)
Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1
“III.  [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that “The Word was God”. There is no doubt that
this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because
greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from
the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost
always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’,
and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does
not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not
use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like
an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John
did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say
that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was
‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was,
as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and
being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t
saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so
perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we
perfectly see what God is like”

"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, be- cause they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20.

"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue."-Justin Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170.

"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4), chapter XXXVIII (38), § 4; ANF, Vol. I, p. 52

"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Heathen (or, The Greeks, or, The Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203.

"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the Father's will ... and meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint ourselves with the perennial, immortal bloom of gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Peadagogus), Book I, chapter XII (12); ANF, Vol. II, p. 234.

"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel-be not deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapter XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151.

"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p. 153.

"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and by the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237.

"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus, Incarnation Of The Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65,  reprinting of October, 1987.  "For He has become Man, that He might deify us in  Himself,  and  He has been  born  of a  woman,  and  begotten  of  a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may become henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter  wrote. (2 Peter 1:4)-Athanasius, Letters of Athanasius, (Lx. Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576.

Origen (185 CE - 251 CE) is called "one of the most learned teachers and prolific authors of the early church."  (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)  Though coming well after the apostolic period, it is interesting to peruse his Commentary on John, as found in volume 9 of
Menzies' "Ante-Nicene Fathers."

              [Quote]
              We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John
              1:1].  He does not write without care in this respect nor is he
              unfamiliar with the Greek tongue.  In some cases he uses the article,
              and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of
              God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when
              the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the
              article, not without it.

              God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so
              the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know
              Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God
              by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God
              (with the article), but rather God (without article).  And thus the
              first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to
              attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the
              other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The
              God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth."

              The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him
              are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype.  But the
              archetypal
              image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the
              beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not
              possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father.
              [Unquote]

For Origen, John 1:1c is the logical outcome of John 1:1b, i.e., the Word is "God" or a divine being *because* he was "with" The God in the beginning, "not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father."
What I found interesting was so early a recognition of the relevance of the difference between QEOS and hO QEOS in John 1:1.  As Origen explains it, the meaning would be similar to modern translators who render John 1:1 as "the Word was Divine" or "the Word was a divine
being" or even -- yes -- "the Word was a god."
I just came across an interesting bit in Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture where a scribe altered John 1:1c in order to elevate the divine status of Jesus.

"I should observe that a similar addition of the article occurs in the 8th century Alexandrian manuscript L of John 1:1, so that the text now reads *O QEOS HN O LOGOS*-making it clear that the Word actually was God himself (not simply divine). I am somewhat reluctant to exclude this singular reading from consideration here, but am nonetheless under the distinct impresssion that it derives from the later Arian controversies. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that Origen already used the *absence* of the article in John 1:1 to demonstrate Christ's subordination to God (Jn. Com 2.2.17-18)." p. 179

To understand the translation "the Word was a god," let us look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, "One of you is a devil."ASV Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities of a devil. The word "devil" here has no article in the greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the "a" to complete the thought.
So what kind of god is Jesus? John 1:18 says he is the "only-begotten God" or "only-born God" who represents the God that "no man hath seen"(NASB, NWT, Lattimore, Byington.
But why is the term WORD/LOGOS used here to refer to Jesus Christ?
First, most of the early Church Fathers considered Wisdom to be Christ.
Eldon J. Epp, in his book "WISDOM, TORAH, WORD: THE JOHANNINE PROLOGUE and the PURPOSE of the  FOURTH GOSPEL  singles out Wisdom hymns in Proverbs, Sirach 24:3-9, 23-32, Baruch 3:9-4:2 and Wisdom of Solomon 7:21-9:18 that he believes influenced the Prologue of John. There are considerable parallels.
In fact, Wisdom 9:1 refers to the God who "made all things by means of his word(logos). But then 9:2 uses SOPHIA(wisdom) as a parallel to LOGOS.

"I issued from the mouth of the Most High" Sirach 24:3 Hence: a Word
"He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease." Sirach 24:9
"All that was secret or manifest I learned." Wisdom 7:21
"But if the possession of wealth is to be desired in life, What is richer than wisdom, which operates everything?" And if understanding works, Who in all the world is a greater craftsman than she?" Wisdom 8:5-6
"God of my forefathers and merciful Lord, Who created all things by your word, and by your wisdom formed man
To rule over the creatures you had made." Wisdom 9:1,2
"And with you is wisdom, which knows your works, And was present when you made the world, And understands what is pleasing in your sight, And what is in accord with your commands." Wisdom 9:9
"She glorifies her high birth in living with God." Wisdom 8:3
"Give me the wisdom that sits by your throne." Wisdom 9:4

"The motif of Wisdom the woman subsequently played a notable part in Jewish and Christian thought. She appears, for example, in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Sirach, in Baruch 3:9-4:4, and in the non-biblical texts from Qumram, and her words are echoed in the New Testament (e.g. Matt. 11:28). Perhaps most resonant of all was Wisdom's speech in Proverbs 8:22-31, stressing her presence at the beginning of creation. Sirach equates Wisdom with the creative word of God (24:3) and with Torah (24:23). Readers of the jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (first century C.E.) have found it difficult to disentangle the properties of God's word (LOGOS) from Wisdom (SOPHIA) of God (1 Cor 1:24). The mini-creation story at John 1:1-3 consciously evokes Proverbs 8."

"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which will give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ. Jesus is referred to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co 1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the world, Col 1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. Finally, John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his gospel throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. Hence, Christian tradition from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself." footnote New Jerusalem Bible at Prov 8

"She is God's associate in his works, and his agent in making all things (Prov 8:22-30; see also Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)." footnote at Wisdom 8:2-21 in the New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV

"While we do not say with certainty that this applies to a personal being, it does foreshadow the beautiful doctrine of the Word of God later developed in St. John`s gospel (Jn 1, 1-14)." footnote at Sirach 24, New American Bible

"Here that plurality of divine persons is foreshadowed which was afterward to be fully revealed when Wisdom in the Person of Jesus Christ became incarnate." footnote at Proverbs 8:22 New American Bible.

"The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements made in the following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf. also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus:
Wisdom was created before them all,
And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4)

The Lord himself created her (Ecclus 1:9

Then the Creator of all gave me his command;
And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT).

So how is it that Jesus stopped being referred to as Wisdom in many minds?

"Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all', as he who is greater also than the Son.  But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son.  In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff.  The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the pre-existent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation.  But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false.... A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone', and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not'.  When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it.  But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea." [e.a.]-pp. 155-8.  The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the prologue to St. John{John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word "god" at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English... The adoring exclation of St. Thomas "my Lord and my god" (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v[erse. 17) "Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as "our God", "my God", but probably never as "God" without qualification.

"We have found the conception of lesser beings around Yahweh was known and utilized throughout Israel's biblical period, beginning possibly as early as the Yahwist in the early Genesis references  and in Ps 29 and Dt 33...and extending to the book of Daniel....The functional distinction of the gods of the peoples among this heavenly company is made clearer, however by II Isaiah and Ps. 82. II Isaiah denies the existence of gods other than Yahweh; yet it is quite likely that II Isaiah himself continued to make use of the conception of heavenly company [compare Isa 6:1-4, 6,7]....It seems to the writer equally likely that it is to be explained in terms of a distinction within the heavenly company as a living reality of Israelite faith, for the poet-prophet condemns and denies the existence to the gods of Babylon which have led the community into idolatry and apostasy. The gods of a foreign people, and perhaps the gods worshipped by all the nations, are denied existence by one who is seeking to meet an immediate and critical religious need. None deserves the worship which is due Yahweh alone; none can perform the role which belongs to Yahweh alone, for there is none like Yahweh. The denial applies not to the entire heavenly company, but to the gods of a foreign people, gods that claim the worship due Yahweh alone."

Email Bag:

avengerofchrist@hotmail.com: Man, you have got it all wrong, and either don't know it, or are too brainwashed by the Cult. If you think the translation of John 1:1 should be rendered "a god", man, you are so lost.
Please read on: JOHN 1:1
The book "REASONING FROM THE SCRIPTURES" (Hereafter referred to as RFTS.) published by the WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY. (copyright 1985. 1989) states the following about John 1:1 on page 212: 'The definite article.'("The') appears before the first occurrence of # 'Theos' (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, where as a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb, (as the sentence is constructed in the Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was god-like, divine, a god.' (Note: The ^ and # are added to help you locate them in the text below.)

This is a misuse, misapplication and erroneous statement  about the Greek language. Let me explain.

avengerofchrist@hotmail.com: OUR FIRST RESPONSE HAS TO DO WITH GREEK GRAMMAR IN REGARD TO COMMON NOUNS. 'A GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK' by Moulton, states on pages 173-174 the following about COMMON NOUNS:
'The article will not normally be used when a person or object is first introduced. or when only an undefined part of a group or class is referred to, or when a person or object is thought of only predictively and therefore not individually and definitely....Since Theos (God) and Kurios (Lord) come so near to being proper nouns, it is not surprising that the article is so often omitted.'
Moulton page 174.

Thus our first response to RFTS is that the absence of the article on the second instance of "God" ("Theos")
which refers to "The Word" is not an indication that Jesus is only "god-like" but rather it is a mere characteristic
of the Greek language, similar to the characteristic of English when we say that "i" usually comes before "e" except after "c".

OUR SECOND RESPONSE HAS TO DO WITH THE RULES IN REGARD
TO PREDICATE NOUNS.
That the article is absent has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus is God or just 'a god" is further proven by the
following rule of Greek Grammar. Before we state the rule, note that the second 'Theos' in John. 1:1 is a predicate noun. That is, it is the object of the verb "to be." Now note the following quote from the same grammar we have been quoting by Moulton.
"E.C. Colwell (JBL. 52. 1933. 12-21) formulates rules for the article with predicate nouns in New Testament
sentences in which the verb occurs. He finds that [a] definite predicate nouns take the article, if (as usual) they
follow the verb; but [b] otherwise they usually lack it; (emphasis mine) and [c] proper nouns (emphasis mine)
lack it; [d] in relative clauses it does not apply since nouns always follow the verb anarthrous or not. MOULTON
PAGE 183
In applying this to John 1:1 note that the second occurrence of 'Theos' which is a predicate noun does not follow
the verb "was' but precedes it. Therefore it conforms to the rule [b] above. Again, the fact that there is no article before 'Theos' does not detract from the fact that Jesus is fully God. The absence of the article merely conforms to the usual way Greek sentences are written when you have a predicate noun that precedes the verb.
OTHER EXAMPLES
For example in Matthew 5:13 the pronoun 'You' precedes
the verb and thus there is no article preceding it.
But in Matthew 13:37.'The Son of Man" follows the verb and thus has the article.

There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite...In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.—Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.—G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.

There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there in no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos so the phrase means 'The Word was divine'.—The Translator's New Testament, p. 451.

We reach a more difficult issue in the Gospel of John. Here, in the Prologue, the Word is said to be God, but, as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used (in the final clause.) For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine' (Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the Absolute sense of the name...In a second passage in the Prologue (I 18) the textual evidence attests 'only-begotten God' more strongly than 'only begotten Son', but the latter is preferred by many commentators as being more in harmony with Johannine usage and with the succeeding clause, 'who is in the bosom of the Father'. In neither passage is Jesus unequivocally called God, while again and again in the Gospel He is named 'the Son of God.—Vincent Taylor, The Expository Times, January 1962. p. 117.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.—Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

The late Dr. William Temple in His Readings in St. John's Gospel (1939), 4, obviously accepts Moffatt's translation, for he says, 'The term “God” is fully substantival [shows identity, who, or what, 'the God', the Father, is] in the first clause  pros ton then [“with the God”, both “the” (ton) and “God” (Theon) being spelled accusative case endings] it is predicative and not far from being adjectival in the second - kai theos en ho logos [“and (a) god was the Word”]—R.H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel (3rd ed., 1941).

The closing words of v[erse]. 1 should be translated, “the Word was divine.” Here the word Theos has no article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective”...Taken by itself, the sentence kai theos en ho logos [and (a) god was the Word] could admittedly bear either of two meanings: 1) 'and the Word was (the) God' or 2) 'and the Word was (a) God'...E.F. Scott's statement about the Philonic doctrine (The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology, Edinburg, 1908, p.151): “The Logos appears sometimes as only an aspect of the activity of God, at other times as a “second God” an independent and it might seem a personal being.”  We have seen that 'and the Word was (a) God' is a possible, if unlikely, translation of kai theos en ho logos. This is apparently accepted by E.F. Scott—J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Expository Times, July 1951, pp. 314-316.

It would be impossible to speak about Jesus without considering the words of John's 'Gospel: “The Word was God”. The Greek of that phrase is Theos en ho logos. This does not mean Word was God. In Greek  ho  is the definite article. [there are eighteen other ways to spell the 'definite' article in the Koine Greek of the first century of the common era] In Greek, if two things are identified [shown to be the same entity] the definite article is used with both. If this phrase meant the Word was God it would be Ho theos çn ho logos. There is noting strange about this. We do the very same in English. When in English, or in Greek, a noun does to have the definite article, it becomes the equivalent of an adjective. [a description rather than an identification, how the subject is rather than what of who the subject is] If in English I say: “John is the man,” then I identify John with a definite and particular specimen of the human race; but if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say  “John is human; he belongs to the sphere of man.” So then, what the Greek really says  [means] in not “The Word was God,” but “The word is in the same sphere as God; it belongs to the same kind of life [spiritual life] and is one with God [cp. John 17:20-23 on “one”]. (Notations is brackets added by this reviewer.)—William Barclay, Who Is Jesus, Tidings, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., 1975, pp. 35-6.

Here “God” is used predicatively, without the article: the Word, whom he has just distinguished from the Person of God, is nevertheless a divine being in his own right.—Bruce Vawter, C.M., The Four Gospels an Introduction, p. 38.

The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefinite and undistributed.—A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, fourth edition, 1934, p. 767.
God - divine in nature...God (in kind)”, [footnote to John 1:1c]—The Cross Reference Bible, American Standard Version, Harold E. Monser, Editor-In-Chief; Associate Editors, C.R. Scotville, I.M. Price, A.T. Robertson, M.S. Terry, Jr., R. Sampey, J.W. Monser, G.C. Eiselen, R.A. Torrey, A.C. Zenor, 1959 edition.

Not that he [John] identified him [the Word] with the Godhead (ho Theos); on the contrary, he clearly distinguishes the Son and the Father and makes him inferior in dignity (“the Father is greater than I”), but he declares that the Son is “God” (Theos), that is, of divine essence or nature.—Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, edition of 1910, Vol. I, p. 690.

The predicate [noun] commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs, to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo I, 1 [kai theos en ho logos], which attributes to the Word the divine nature,—Maximilian Zerwich, S.J., Biblical Greek, Rome, Scriptua Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Pontifical Biblical Scripture Institute), p. 55.

In John 1:1...Theos en (“was deity”);...The qualitative force is obvious and most important,—Alfred M. Perry, “Translating The Greek Article” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1949, Vol. l68, p. 331.

After closely examining Colwell's rule, Harris says, "This leads me to affirm that one may not infer (as is often done) in rule 2b that anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the verb are usually definite. Indeed, such nouns will usually be qualitative in emphasis.—Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1992, pp. 60, 312.

So let us take a look at COLWELL'S “RULE”

Grammarian Nigel Turner, has gone on record as saying:
So that while the canon [rule] may reflect a general tendency it is not absolute by any means; after all, it takes no account of relative clauses of proper nouns like that in [ho Theos agape estin, [“the God love is”] 1 John 4:8. Moreover, he is the first to admit the lack of objectivity in his method of counting: he professes to include only definite nouns among his anarthrous predicates, and the degree of definiteness is extremely difficult to assess.—A Grammar of New Testament Greek, James Hope Moulton, Nigel Turner, Vol. III, Syntax, 1963, p.1

Dixon says: "The only other conceivable value of Colwell's rule [that is, other than textual criticism] is to say it is possible to have an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb that is definite (but, did we not already know that?), and that because Colwell apparently found some. Yet it is most important to see that the rule says nothing about the probability of definiteness (contrary to what Colwell and Blum have us believe), nor can it, as Colwell has not considered both definite and non-definite nouns. Because Colwell considered only definite predicate nominatives then his rule applies when definiteness has already been determined, then, the probability of articularity may be ascertained...Assuming the rule is valid, its value is almost exclusively for textual criticism. The rule may not be valid, however, as its underlying assumptions are highly questionable."
Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 18, 23.

Colwell's "rule" *assumes* definiteness of the QEOS at John 1:1c.Take for example, Acts 26:4 "This man (Paul) is *a* murderer" is a precise Colwell construction with "murderer" as anarthrous but is not within the scope of Colwell's "rule." "Murderer" is not a definite noun. QEOS is not a definite noun, as is clearly shown by John 10:34 "You are gods" QEOI ESTIN, which, markedly, is a Colwell "construction" itself! At 1Kings 18:37 we have Elijah crying out
regarding Baal "QEOS ESTIN" . We here have a use of a Colwell construction that parallels John 1:1c with the same anarthrous preverbal predicate QEOS. Brenton's LXX translation renders it as "He is a god!"

Download a .pdf document from Rodney Decker on Colwell's Rule.

The Greek text of the Christian Scriptures has many examples of this type of predicate noun where other translators into English have added the indefinite article "a." Consider, for example, Marshall's interlinear translation of the following verses: "Says to him the woman: Sir, I perceive that a prophet [predicate] art [verb] thou [subject]." (John 4:19) "Said therefore to him-Pilate: Not really a king [predicate] art [verb] thou [subject]? Answered-Jesus: Thou sayest that a king [predicate] I am [verb, with subject included]."-John 18:37.

Did you notice the expressions "a prophet," "a king" (twice)? These are anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek. But the translator rendered them with the indefinite article "a." There are numerous examples of this in English versions of the Bible. For further illustration consider the following from the Gospel of John in The New English Bible: "A devil" (Jn 6:70); "a slave" (Jn 8:34); "a murderer . . . a liar" (Jn 8:44); "a thief" (Jn 10:1); "a hireling" (Jn 10:13); "a relation" (Jn 18:26).

Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses mentioned in the two previous paragraphs, and in many more: "The use of it in translation is a matter of individual judgement. . . . We have inserted 'a' or 'an' as a matter of course where it seems called for." Of course, neither Colwell (as noted above) nor Marshall felt that an "a" before "god" at John 1:1 was called for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar. It was "individual judgement," which scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed a different judgment in this place by the translation "a god."

Let us look at other anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb, to find their qualitative status.  (taken from Harner's article, page 82,  footnote “19”). The information above and below have to do with anarthrous  predicate nominatives preceding the verb, (in the Greek text) “I am” EIMI or any of its forms, such as HN “was”.

III Kings 18:27, LXX (Septuagint); (=1 Kings 18:27):
“And it was noon, and Eliu [Elijah] the Teshbite mocked them, and said, Call with a loud voice, for he is a god;”. Here we have the same syntax as at John 1:1c; the word “god” is an anarthrous predicate nominative and it occurs before the verb “estin” (“is”) a form of  “I am”.

Mark 11:32:
“They feared the people,  for everyone held that John was a prophet.” (NIV). Here John has the qualities of the prophets of old.

John 6:70:
“Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (NIV). Was Judas really “a devil” i.e. Satan himself? No. He was diabolical, like the Devil.  He had the qualities of Satan.  B.F. Westcott comments on this: “Judas...partook of that which is essential to the devil's nature.” (The Gospel According to St John,  p. 253)  Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite); he was not a devil (indefinite), he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, Satan. If a definite meaning were desired the word order would be, 'is the devil'; if an indefinite meaning were desired the word order would be, 'is devil'. Since the word order is, 'devil is', and a form of “I am” comes after the noun, the meaning is qualitative, as it is in these examples including John 1:1c.

JOHN 12:6
“He [Judas] said this, not out of any care for the poor, but because he was a thief he used to pilfer the money put into the common purse, which was in his charge.” (NEB) The information is given that Judas sought ways in which to gain money in a dishonest manner, (verse) 5). He was not merely a thief, one who stole; he was a thief. He wanted to steal, he planned to steal, his nature was to steal; stealing was in his heart. He was a thief!

In these examples, which have the same noun function (adjectival) as John 1:1c, we have seen that the main meaning is, a description of the nature, the disposition of, the subject, not the subject's rank nor position nor title. In other words not who or what the subject was, but how the subject was.

If John really wanted to provide support for the trinity, why didn't he write it something like this, "in the beginning was the Word, and he was with the Father, and they were both one God"?  I think he would have, for he was not trying to hide God's nature, but to reveal it, and the endless sea of dissertations, discussions, and exegetical extrapolations that have focused on this one tiny hymn testify to the problems trinitarians are faced with in trying to use this verse as a basis for their doctrine.  If Harris can admit that "[theos en ho logos] could be rendered 'the Word was a god'" (Jesus as God, p 60), and if C.H. Dodd can admit that "As a word-for-word translation it [the 'a god' rendering] cannot be faulted" (Technical Papers for The Bible Translator,Vol 28,
No.1, January, 1977), and if Robert Young can confirm that John 1:1c could literally be rendered "and a God (i.e. a Divine being) was the Word" (Young's Concise Commentary), and if Catholic Scholar John L. McKenzie is willing to go so far as to say that "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated...'the Word was a divine being'", and if all the above translators see something similar in John 1:1c, then why not simply accept the 'a god' rendering, which is the most natural.  As William Loader puts it:

                     "It is true, on the most natural reading of the text, that there are
                     two beings here: God and a second who was theos but this
                     second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is
                     the absolute over against which the second is defined.  They
                     are not presented as two equal gods."

Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of QEOS who is "with" TON QEON, thus he cannot be the God he is with! This one is further identified as "a son from a father," as a "begotten god," and as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word QEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as "god."
So either there was two equal Gods talking to each other or there was one godlike (a quality) individual talking to the Almighty God. There is no other possible explanation.

avengerofchrist@hotmail.com: I saw your picture, and your very nice looking family. I sincerely hope you never rub off all that rubbish upon them......

avengerofchrist@hotmail.com says: "You have no response. You will now need to conjure up some cult material to define your reasoning, which is guaranteed to make no sense what so ever. I look forward to the amusement of your ridiculous "Witch" tower response.

For more on Colwell's Rule, go to:
A Response To Don Hartley on the Matter of the Colwell Construction,
Luke 7:39, and the Use of Theology in Grammatical Studies

And
Surrejoinder to Don Hartley: Q-Class Count Nouns, John 1:1c, and
Other Related Matters, By Greg Stafford

"Earlier in this century E. C. Colwell attempted to use a certain grammatical construct to prove, among other things, that Jesus was God, and that John 1:1 supported this teaching. For years Trinitarian scholars used and abused Colwell's rule, citing ...but all the while they were oblivious to the fact that what they were advocating
was in direct contradiction to the very doctrine they were seeking to uphold, the Trinity."

An Open Letter to James White Regarding his "Germans, JWs, and John 1:1"
Updated Aug 2  2001