From JOHN1onePLUS Update in 70-John-1-1-Truths.htm with many references to prove them exist.

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

1865 Diaglot NT Free Downloads For Diaglot-Open-onlinebible.net/bibles2

(2) Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"
(3) Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"
(4) Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god
(5) Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine
(6) Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god
(7) New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
(8) Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine
(9) Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god" .answeringantimormons.com/John1-1. 
(10) Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"
(11) Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
(12) Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"
(13) Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
(14) Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"
(15) Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
(16) J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"
(17) George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
(18) Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"
(19) ames L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"
(20) Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"
(21) Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"
(22) Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
(23) Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature
(24) Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"
(25) Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
(26) Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine
(27) Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
(28) Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One
(29) Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
(30) Madsen, 1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being"
(31) Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]
(32) Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
(33) Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being]
(34) Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]
(35) Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
(36) Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
(37) Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
(38) Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind]
(39) Pfaefflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind]
(40) Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]
(41) Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]
(42) Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word)
(43) Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
(44) Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God]
(45) Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"
(46) Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].
(47) William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine."
(48) John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"
(49) Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
(50) Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"
(51) Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)
Now-Online are TheBestBiblesplus

52 On are part of 70-John-1-1-Truths.htm with many references to prove them exist

All Links are creditable factual references. If YOU have something to add to the facts E-Mail librarian@simplebibletruths.net From  Seee SBT.net /index

       In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with The God (gr. Ton Theon) and the Word was 

                  John 1:1.The Word was God, 

                                The Word was god-- or

                                The Word was a god—-

Important Note-All three are correct. Why? Open 3-Difference-Jn-1-1-Translations.htm For the answer to what is the right way to render John-1:1

 

(52)  International Standard Version,  In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God.

Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made

(ISV) International Standard Version-Davidson Press, 1998

http://tyndalearchive.com/scriptures/isv.htm--http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/isv.htm

 

(53)    Disciples New Testament,    In the beginning [of creation] there was the Manifestation*; And that Manifestation was with God;

 and God was [the embodiment of] that Manifestation. 

Victor Alexander--ISBN: 1438215398 --Publisher: CreateSpace--Date of Publication: 13/05/2008

http://www.v-a.com/bible/--http://www.v-a.com/bible/john_1-7.html#JOHN#1

& http://www.langtoninfo.com/showitem.asp?isbn=1438215398

 

(54)   The Peoples New Testament,    That he who was afterwards manifest as the Christ existed before creation began;

 that he was present with God; that he was divine; that he was the Word;

B.W. Johnson, 1891--http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bjohnson/hg1/PNT04-01.HTM

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-New-Testament-Explanatory-Notes/dp/0892251417

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5014897881--& http://www.oldpaths.org/Library/Comments/Hess/Col/bib.html

 

(55)    The Abbreviated Bible,    The Word existed with God from the beginning, and all things were created through him

James Leslie McCary and Mark McElhaney--Publisher - Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1971

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL4918632M--http://lccn.loc.gov/76173420

& http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/tab.htm

 

(56) Cassirer New Testament,    It was the Word that was at the very beginning; and the Word was by the side of God,

and the Word was the very same as God---Heinz W. Cassirer, 1989--http://tyndalearchive.com/scriptures/cnt.htm

&  http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/cnt.htm

 

(57) The Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition,    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was Elohim.

Assemblies of Yahweh,  1981http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/ssbe.htm

http://www.assembliesofyahweh.com/SSBE.htm & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Scriptures_Bethel_Edition

 

(58)  New World Translation,    In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,  1961  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

http://www.watchtower.org/bible/index.htm & http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html

 

(59)  New Testament: An Understandable Version,    The Word [already] existed in the beginning [of time].{Note: this is a reference to the preexistence of Jesus. See verse 14}. And the Word was with God and the Word was [what] God
[was]--William E. Paul-
Published by Author House,  2002-http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=33940

http://tyndalearchive.com/scriptures/ntuv.htm & http://ncbible.org/AUV/Contents.htm

 

(60)  Rolf Furuli "and the Word was a divine being"

 If I were to translate the Bible for a group with no previous knowledge of it, I would use an idiomatic method, but I would follow your advise to translate important words as uniformely as possible. Because I see so much unnecessary theological coloring of the text in the modern versions, I guess I would be extremely careful to render theologically important passages as literal as possible. And the most important thing - I would like to have an extensive apparatus of footnotes, both giving textual variants and alternative renderings. But I would not give Louw & Nida's suggestions in a footnote to Col 1:15, because they in my view are completely unfounded, linguistically speaking.

To John 1:1, however, I would use one of the following five renderings in the main text, and the four others in a footnote: "And the Word was God", "and the Word was divine", "and the Word was a divine being", "and the Word was a god", "and god was the word".

RegardsRolf--Rolf Furuli--Lecturer in Semitic languages--University of Oslo-http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-April/002537.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Furuli

 

(61)  the word was a god. (Revised Version-Improved and Corrected)

http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/BibleXref.asp?xref=RVIC^John^1

http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/BibleIndex.asp?Parm=RVIC

http://www.heraldmag.org/2008/08nd_14.htm

http://www.biblereadersmuseum.com/BibleLink5.html

 

(62) Professor Felix Just S.J.  In origin was the Word, and the Word was toward [the] God,* and god/deity/God* was the Word.

Professor Felix Just, S.J., Loyola Marymount University, 2007--http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outlines-Prologue.htm

actual translation web site ( see Note on Translation of 1:1-2 below )

http://catholic-resources.org/Courses/LMU/310Syllabus.htm---- web site and courses run by Felix Just

http://www.amazon.com/John-Jesus-History-Appraisals-Literature =8-1

Note on the Translation of 1:1-2:

My translation here is an attempt (maybe not completely successful?) to point out a curiosity and difficulty in the original Greek of John 1:1c, where the Evangelist writes, "KAI ThEOS HN hO LOGOS."

If the evangelist meant, "and the Word was God" (as it is often translated, capital 'God', in the full Trinitarian sense of later Christianity), he probably would have written "KAI hO LOGOS HN hO ThEOS" (or "KAI hO ThEOS HN hO LOGOS" - essentially saying A=B or B=A). Instead, he wrote "KAI ThEOS HN hO LOGOS," omitting the expected article "hO" in front of "ThEOS."

..

The first difference/difficulty: Ancient Greek has "definite articles" (in masculine, feminine, and neuter forms - but all equivalent to "the" in English), but it does NOT have any "INdefinite articles" (English "a, an"). In translation, we usually write "the" if the Greek noun is preceded by a definite article, while we often (but not always) have to ADD the word "a" or "an" in standard English when the definite article is missing in Greek (for example, "hO STAUROS" is "the cross," while "STAUROS" alone is "a cross"). So translating "KAI ThEOS HN hO LOGOS" as "and the Word was a god" (as Jehovah's Witnesses do) adds an indefinite article in English that is not explicit in the orinigal Greek text, and may or may not be appropriate in English translation.

A second difference/difficulty: When ancient Greek texts refer to "God" (ThEOS), they usually include the definite article in front, "hO ThEOS," even though translating this too literally sounds strange in English. We usually just say "God," rather than "the God." Thinking of "hO ThEOS" as "the (one and only) God" might help, but still, we do not normally put the" in front of "God." So most English translations simply drop the definite article whenever "hO ThEOS" refers to the Jewish or Christian monotheistic "God." In contrast, in polytheistic contexts, it is sometimes better to translate "hO ThEOS" as "the god" (for example, "He went to the temple of the god" - implying a particular god, maybe Apollo, from among the many gods in the Greek pantheon).

..

So what did the Evangelist mean in John 1:1c? He certainly did not consider Jesus to be just one "divine being" or "deity" among many others. If he meant "divine" in this broader sense, he easily could have used the related Greek adjective, "ThEIOS," rather than the noun "ThEOS." (See, for example, the adjective "ThEIOS" used twice in 2 Peter 1:3-4, referring to "divine power" and "divine nature"). Other texts in John clearly show that the Fourth Evangelist sees Jesus in a unique relationship with God, calling him "the only-begotten son" (TON hUION TON MONOGENH; 3:16), challenging us to believe "in the name of the only-begotten son of God" (EIS TO ONOMA TOU MONOGENOUS hIOU TOU ThEOU; 3:18), referring to his glory "as of a father's only son" (hWS MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS; 1:14), and even calling him "the only-begotten God" (MONOGENHS ThEOS; 1:18 - another difficult phrase, with several ancient textual variations).

To summarize: The Fourth Evangelist may not yet have thought of Jesus as the "second person of the Trinity" (theological language that took several centuries to develop in early Christianity - itself strongly influence by this Johannine passage); yet John certainly thought of Jesus as "divine" or "deity" or "god" in a unique sense, not merely "a god," or one deity among many. Exactly what he meant in John 1:1c may not be easy to understand, and it is even harder to translate into English because of the difficulties mentioned above. So rather than fixate on any particular English translation, even the best of which might confuse us or lead us astray, we should try to continue deepening our understanding of what John's entire Gospel says about the uniquely close relationship of Jesus and the Father.

(63)  The New Testament, An improved version  the Word was a god -Thomas Belsham> et al., 1809

 The New Testament, An improved version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation with a corrected text and notes critical and explanatory.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Se0UAAAAYAAJ&dq=Belsham+New+Testament+1809&prints&sig=k_result&resnum=3&ct=result

--actual book

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Se0UAAAAYAAJ&dq=Belsham+New+Testament+1809&printg=result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA200,M1

-- actual verse of John 1:1-http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html--about Belsham

 

(64) A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John     [A] Divine Person.

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., Rector of St. James, Westminster

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3246630?lookfor=1&max=4079824-- actual book at National Library of Australia

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_2077&chapter=157679&layout=html&Itemid=27

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OemH4jKItGQC&dq=Clarke,+Samuel,+D.D.,+1675-1729,+Rector+of+St.+James%E2%80%99,+Westminster&prints=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result-- searchable book pages 5,6,8 useful

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=samuel+clarke&type=all&limits=&submit=Find

 

(65) A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians   a god

Andrews Norton, D.D.

Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833

http://books.google.com/books?id==A+Statement+of+Reasons+Believing+the+Doctrines+of+Trinitarians#PPA280,M1

-- actual book. Search for a god on pages 2, 28, 67, 68, 280

http://books.google.com/books?iA+Statement+of+Reasons+For+Not+Believing+the+Doctrines+of+Trinitarians#PPA365,M1

1859 version. Actual text. See pages 40, 68, 113, 121, 158, 205, 231, 314, 365

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3756182?lookfor=A%20StatementBelieving%20the%20Doctrines%20of%20Trinitarians&offset=04

 

(66) The Beginnings of Christianity       a God

PAUL WERNLE-PROFESSOR EXTRAORDINARY OF MODERN CHURCH HISTORY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BASEL

The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16

Translated by  THE REV. G. A. BIENEMANN, M.A.  and edited, with an Introduction, by  THE REV. W. D. MORRISON, LL.D.

VOL. I. -  THE RISE OF THE RELIGION--WILLIAMS AND NORGATE

14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON AND 7 BROAD STREET, OXFORD

NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAMS SONS , 1903--http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wernle_paul/beginnings01.iii.v.ii.html - actual book , chapter 15

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beginnings-Christianity-Translated-Bienemann-introduction & http://lccn.loc.gov/04017922

 

(67) Twenty First Century New Testament Literal Translation     and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god.

Vivian Capel-- Twenty First Century New Testament Literal Translation:

 The Dual Translation which Enables a Study of the Literal Meanings of the Original Text to be Combined with a Reading in Modern English.

Published by Insight Press, Bristol, 1998--ISBN 0953187705

http://www.biblereadersmuseum.com/biblebiblio.htm--http://www.goldenagebooks.co.uk/ViewProduct.asp?productID=28

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Twenty-Century-Testament-Literal-Translation/

(68)  Concordant Literal New Testament With Keyword Concordance      "God was the Word" --A.E. Knock

Concordant Literal New Testament With Keyword Concordance, 1983--ISBN      0910424144

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL11380939M/Concordant-Literal-New-Testament-With-Keyword-Concordance

http://www.concordant.org/version/NewFiles/04_John.htm & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordant_Literal_Version

 

(69) Dictionary of the Bible  "the word was a divine being.'--Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965 - Dictionary of the Bible# "Trinity.

In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (Gk. ho theos) is the Father* of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun [Gk. ho theos] is applied to Jesus a few times.

 

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being."

Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the *Father, "My Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28). "The glory of our great God and Savior" which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tt 2:13)"

(Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, God, p317)

 The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature" which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible.

The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essence" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians. ... Without an explicit formula the NT leaves no room to think that Jesus is Himself an object of the adoption which He communicates to others. He knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being. What is less clear about the Spirit is His personal reality; often He is mentioned in language in which His personal reality is not explicit.

(Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie,  p899

http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Bible-John-L-Mckenzie/dp/0684819139--http://atijournal.org/McKenzie.htm

http://authors.simonandschuster.com/John-L-Mckenzie-  & http://www.librarything.com/author/mckenziejohnl

 

(70)  An Exposition Of The Historical Writings Of The New Testament     "and the word was [a] God."--Timothy Kenrick

AN EXPOSITON OF THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Vol.II.

Published in 1807, Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme (London), 1807

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL21105798M & http://www.hurleybooks.com/si/44603.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jgU&source=gbs_search_r&cad=0_1#PRA4-PA12,M1

 

A Note : 70 Different people or Bible Publishers in 70 different situations recognize that was God with a CAPITAL G is not the universal translation of John 1:1. 

And this work has spanned many centuries and many countries!!

In fact, this information makes it clear that what is orthodox is not orthodox at all rather we see that many translators realize that God was telling us something very unique about Jesus in John 1:1 and his relationship with God. Many translators let theology get in the way of truth  - here we see honest efforts to show Gods word correctly translated.

May we always seek the pure truth of Gods word.

Who is Jesus. Write the librarian@simplebibletruths.net   

Yahweh alone is truth and love. Amen.

For this purpose the Son of God was manifested,

that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1John 3:8)

See Parallel Translations http://bible.cc/1_john/3-8.htm

SBT Is a-Reference *Research Expository Biblical Library Lu 8:17*with Readers Participation- Send in Your Biblical accurate Facts to Dear Librarian at librarian@simplebibletruths.net See Open New HP Home PageSBT receives Facts and Verifies them. In this GOD or god disclosure--a fact is that JWs didnt exist before 1870 so those Bibles before then-- they had nothing to do with them being published and this page is not about JWs its about All Bible Publications we can find. There are many web-sites that like to mention JWs with any Bible that reads different from and the Word was God-For Jws open 33.htm SBT Sent a John 1:1 list to the Experts of Jehovah-s-Witnesses-1617/Theology open John-1-1-Theology.htm 9/1/2006Plus see- TrinityBestDescribedAndSimplified.htm  The Historic Jesus in the New Testament Robert Harvey Strachen, Student Christian Movement Press: London, 1931, p. 187.Refences in http://openlibrary.org/ & Another Historical Biblical NOTE is that the T-O.htm Trinity/Oneness T-O.htm Movement since 325 B.C.Has done the Best to stop these Bibles from being printed Also open and see Foot-Notes in FooterJpg.htm plus JOHN1onePLUS--Fact.htm and John-1-1-All-Articles.htm. the Word was GOD is Homoousion  Theology What is Homoousion Open Homoousion

And Theology Plus--WhatDoYouBelieve.htm and GOD.

70-John-1-1-Truths-70 Bibles that reads god  a god, a God, like God, Godlike, divine or the like rather then the Word was GOD

For detailed introduction about this page open John-1-1a-Introduction.htm and Foot-Notes Who is Jesus. Write the librarian@simplebibletruths.net   

All Links are creditable factual references. If YOU have something to add to the facts E-Mail librarian@simplebibletruths.net From http://simplebibletruths.net /

       In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with The God (gr. Ton Theon) and the Word was 

                  John 1:1.The Word was God, 

                                The Word was god-- or

                                The Word was a god—

Important Note-All three are correct. Why? Open GODorgod. Did GODorgod Have the Bible written so we would know Facts or Myths Open John-1-1-18. 58.htm E-Mail librarian@simplebibletruths.net  About Bible Publishers.  R/in Bible Publishers Accountable To Who and GODorgod

Part-2-Of-John-1-1-Covers-Other-Biblical-Errors.htm that mostly support the Trinity by