Answering Questions about the New World Translation Bible

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

These are emails that I've received about the New World Translation from people who for some strange reason just don't like that Bible. Enjoy.

Emerson: It doesn't import me what will say. It matters it is the truth. NWT is a confused translation and full of interpolations.

Reply: No, it is no more full of interpolations than any other Bible, and even less so for Bibles that use the Dynamic Equivalent approach to Bible translating.

S777: It doesn't take long for someone reading the WT Bible to realize that it is very wooden, wordy, graceless, stiff, awkward, unwieldy, dull, unfortunate and odd. Things like the word "grace" being translated as "undeserved kindness" are a bit weighty at first, but it is still being true to the text. The question is, is it a translation that maintains the beauty of the Bible, or is it devoid of the beauty that has been captured and inspired by God?
Starting off in Genesis, we find that the NWT uses the term "bad" as opposed to "evil."
Gen 2:17 "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it."
Bad can mean many things. Someone can have a bad back. In can be meant as ïincorrectÍ. The room you live in could have bad lighting. An untrained puppy is a "bad puppy." Satan rebelling against God and causing death and pain and the fall of 20 or 30 billion souls is none other than "EVIL." Hitler was not bad for killing 10 million people, he was evil. You get the point? You may say this is nit picking, but stick with me for a moment.

Reply: The problem with this is, the fruit was not meant for Satan, and the prohibition put on the tree was not directed towards spirit creatures such as Satan, but mere humans. Yes, the word "bad" can also mean a "bad puppy" or "bad lighting," but it is used in the context of Genesis 2 as the antithesis to "good." Good knowledge as opposed to bad knowledge. Ask anyone what the opposite of good is, and you will get "bad" as an answer, before you get "evil."
Evil might have a better ring to it, but the Hebrew and Greek (LXX) words used indicate that it has "bad" as a meaning before "evil." (See BAGD, BDB, Strong's, Vine's etc)
The word "bad" is also used in the Living Bible, The Holy Bible in the Language of Today by William F. Beck, Tanakh-The New Jewish Publication Society, The New American Bible, Good News Bible, and Byington's Bible in Living English.

SS777: Judges 14:3 is a passage where Samson spots a lovely Philistine woman and says to his parents enthusiastically Her get for me(NWT). ...
The Bible is filled with beautiful literature, even atheists can admire its poise and gracefulness. The Psalms overflow with the exhortations to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. It seems the NWT has taken the beauty out of the Bible, and even the word itself. [Ed. Judges 14:3 in the NWT actually says "Still Samson said to his father:  'Get just her for me,  because she is the one just right in my eyes.'"]

Reply: If you want beauty, then read the Revised English Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible, if you want word study, then choose the NWT.
"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate to learn *the Hebrew or Greek* languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible Translations
and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his]
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, Duthie

For instance, in Judges 14:3, most Bibles will remove the references to "eyes." The Hebrew Interlinear (Jay P. Green) reads, "for she is pleasing in my eyes."
But what do most Bibles say?
"for she pleaseth me well" ASV, KJV
"pleases me very much" LITV
"she is the one that suits me" Smith & Goodspeed
"she looks good to me" NASB
If you are fortunate to have the NASB Study Bible, it gives the literal rendering in the margin...and it reads exactly like it is in the NWT, and THAT is the value of having the NWT.

From a reader in ALL CAPS: IN JOHN 3:15-16 VS 15 TRANSLATES THE BELIEVING TO BELEIVING, BUT IN VS. 16 THE SAME WORD IS TRANSLATED TO "EXCERISING FAITH"  PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS.

Reply: The NWT was making a distinction between PISTEUWN EN in verse 15, and PISTEUWN EIS in verse 16. The expression in verse 16 is continual.

Again: IN ROMANS 5:9 THE GREEK "WE WILL BE SAVED" IS TRANSLATED TO "SHALL WE BE SAVED"  IN VS 10 THE SAME WORD IS TRANSLATED THE SAME ON BOTH SIDE.  PLEASE EXPLAIN.

Reply: The translators were probably making a distinction between SWQHSOMEQA DI in verse 9 ("we shall be saved" CB Williams NT) and SWGHSOMEQA EN in ver 10 ("we shall finally be saved" CB Williams NT) as Williams NT has.

Again: 1 JOHN 3:24 WHY WAS THE "WE ARE KNOWING" CHANGED TO "GAIN THE KNOWLEDGE".

Reply: Vine's dictionary gives as the primary definition of GINWSKW as "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know." The NWT translators felt the above was the best option as the Greek word is in the first person present.

Again: LUKE 17:19 THE FAITH OF YOU HAS SAVED YOU, CHANGED TO "HAS MADE YOU WELL.  PLEASE EXPLAIN

Reply: This is actually the common rendering of the text (see NASB, NKJV etc).
This falls within the semantic range (see Louw&Nida 23.136) and we have to remember that it is not always the best idea to translate word for word, as we must find the best way to express it so that people can properly understand the meaning behind it.

Again: IN JOHN 14:10 WHY IS THE WORD"IN" (EV) TRANSLATED TO "IN UNION" IN ENGLISH?

Reply: They felt that "in union with" best describes what is trying to be said. The Revised English Bible and CB Williams New Testament does this also at John 14:10.
"Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and that the Father is in union with me? I am not saying these things of my own authority, but the Father who always remains in union with me is doing these things himself." Williams NT
See also Romans 6:23; 8:1; 8:2; 12:5 and many others in the Good News Bible.

From an email: Here are some verses with my translations and understanding that support the Trinity 1Cor. 12:4-6, 2Cor. 13:14, 2Th. 2:13.

Reply: Sir, simply mentioning the three together does not have them share a substance, essence or ousia, or in any way imply an equality shared in one body.
Did you notice that all your scriptures actually apply the word GOD to only one of them. When the three are together, only one is actually God, and that excludes the Son and the Spirit. Interesting. There are a lot more Scriptures that mention God, Jesus and the angels together.

From a Reader Regarding Jesus as Michael:

In Hebrews 1; 5 it reads For example; to which one of the angels did he ever say: "you are my son;I today, I have become your Father".  Objection 1) the word (one) is not in many translations only on the NWT.  Objection 2)  the words  (did I ever say) is a question that is being answered at the sametime.  It is in the negative as in(no I did not).

Reply: My versions seem to be split as whether "angels" should be rendered in the plural or the singular. Consider:
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time" KJV, Barclay
"For to what angel did God ever say" Williams NT, Montgomery, Smith&Goodspeed
"to any of the messengers" Ferrar Fenton
"an angel" New English Bible, Simple English Bible
As for 2)
An Archangel is no mere angel.
Jesus has always been set apart from one of the angels. For instance, the angels are called "sons of God" (Gen 6; Job 38:7), but yet, Jesus is called the:
"only Son" RSV
"only-begotten Son" KJV, NWT and
"one and only Son" NIV at John 3:16
The same, yet different/unique.

MP asks: Have you thought that the Greek grammar allows for the word WORSHIP at Hebrews 1:6?

Reply: Greek grammar does allow for the word "Worship", but in the sense that it is used in the following:
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV

From a reader: I have to disagree with your chart on Colwell and Bible Versions. Colwell would never have promoted a New Testament that uses the Divine Name.
See http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-new-world-translation-is-best-new.html

Reply: The use of the Divine Name was not part of Colwell's criteria. He chose the Centenary New Testament as one of his picks, and yet it had the Divine Name.

Dby: I have a question that maybe you can answer for me. When Jesus Christ was teaching his followers how to pray, why did he not use the name Jehovah in "The Model Prayer"? In Matt.6:19(The Living Bible)he says,"Our Father in heaven,we honor your holy name".
If it is SO IMPORTANT that we use the name Jehovah in our worship, then why didn't Jesus Christ our Lord specifically use the the name Jehovah when instructing his disciples how to pray to God The Almighty???

Reply: Who says he didn't? I mean, let's face it, when is this prayer ever repeated in the New Testament. It simply teaches us what things to pray for, but it was never repeated in exactly the same way. My MacArthur Study links the Model Prayer to Malachi 1:11 which says in the American Standard Version:
"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of hosts."
I think his disciples caught the tie-in.

Dby: I personally feel more comfortable addressing God as "Heavenly Father" when praying. I feel this way because I want to have a "parent to child" kind of close relationship with God.

Reply: But what is more important? How you FEEL, or what the Bible says?
Father is quite an interchangeable title. Consider John 8. The Jews said Abraham was
their Father (v. 39), then they said God is their Father (v. 41) and then Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44).
Personally, and Biblically, I could never dishonor my Father by NOT using His name.
"A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised the name?" Malachi 1:6 ASV

From Hrh: Just  a few questions. First,why are there 2 greek translation books? [I am assuming he is talking about the Kingdom Interlinear] The 1969 and the 1985 version,and why are they different? why are words added in brackets when there are greek words that could have been used? Why have some footnotes have been removed or changed from 1969 to 1985? Why is it not a word for word translation? [like it says in front of both books]

Reply: I own many interlinears in Greek made by different Bible societies and people. You will find that none of them agree together 100% (even the ones made by the same people in multiple editions...like Jay P. Green's Greek Interlinear). We all grow in understanding. Case in point: You will also find that the older New World Translations differ slightly from the newer ones. But you will also find that this is the case with the NIV, NRSV, NASB, NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, TEV etc. It is common, and does not indicate a devious agenda. The intent of both the KIT and NWT is to be "as literal as possible."

From an Email: The New World Translation used to have the word "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, but in later editions, it changed it to "obeisance." I can show you if you don't believe me. What do you think of that?

Reply: I know that it was changed. We are not alone in this. The Jerusalem Bible had "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, but the New Jerusalem Bible changed it to "homage." No one is going to call these translators biased against the Trinity. So why the change? Many years ago, the word *worship* did not have the same connotation as it does today. For instance, the bible could speak of Daniel and King David as being worshipped:
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV
All Bible versions make a distinction with this word, as it is lexically possible to do so (see Matt 18:26). According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence to God(John 4:24)...to Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man (Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon (Re. 13:4)...to the Beast (Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast (Rev 14:11)...to demons (Rev 9:20)...to idols (Acts 7:43)."

AOC writes: The NWT (New World Translation) translates EGW EIMI as I AM each time, except at John 8:58. How do you explain that?

Reply: Is this really exceptional? Let us look at the use of EGW EIMI in context:

Version	John 8:12	John 8:18	John 8:24	John 8:28	John 8:58	John 9:9
NWT	I am	I am	I am [he]	I am [he]	I have been	I am [he]
AT	I  am	I am	I am	I am	I existed	I am
New Living Trans	I am	I am	I am	I am [he]	I existed	I am
Williams	I am	N/A	I am	I am	I existed	I am
Beck	I am	N/A	I'm	I am	I was	I'm
Lamsa	I am	N/A	I am	I am he	I was	I am he
Simple English	I am	I am	I am	I am	I was alive	I'm
Moffatt	I am	N/A	I am	I am	I have existed	I am
NASB Reference  Edition 1960-73	I am	I am	I am He	I am He	I am...  ftn: I have been	I am
Five Gospels	I am	N/A	I am	I am	I existed	It's me
Living Bible	I am	I am	I am	I am	I was in existence	I am
Kleist&Lilly NT	I am	I am	I am he	I am he	I am here and I was	I am
20th Century NT	I am	N/A	I am	I am	I was	I am he
21st Century NT	I am	I am	I am	I am	came into being	I am

As you can see, the NWT is not alone in this. If we simply look up the words in Strong's, we get "I" for ego [1473], and "I exist...am, have been." Notice too that the chart points to John 9:9 where a blind beggar says the same words, egw eimi, as Jesus did in John 8:58. Does this also make him YHWH?

AOC on John 14:28: [He is] Greater in terms of position only...Is the president greater then I am? Yes, but only in position (such as his rank), but on a substance and essence level, he is not. We are equal, in terms of form, and substance, and essence, just as Christ and God are.

Reply: Think about the Creed:
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father"
Are you ONE BEING with the president? Are you president from president? Are you son of the president?
You do not share a substance/essence with the president according to Trinitarian theology. You are not homoousian with him, and therefore you are comparing apples to oranges.
The president is greater than you because you are TWO different people, seperate and subordinate. TWO, not ONE in TWO.

Cs: Micah 5:2 says that Jesus always existed.

Reply: The New Jerusalem Bible has "whose origins are back to the distant past, to the days of old." My Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says it of OLAM (5769) "long duration, antiquity" The word is even used of the forefathers (Joshua 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8).

Cs: Taken together (qedem AND yown owlam) these communicate, as Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say, "the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable" Renowned Old Testament scholar Merrill F. Unger, commenting on Micah 5:2 in Unger's Bible Handbook says, "He [Jesus] is the Bethlehem-born pre-existent, eternal One"

Reply: Obviously, many other Bible versions do not agree with this. The fact that the Bible says he is the first being created would obviously indicate that he is older than anything else, thus necessitating the stress at Mic 5:2. In Prov 8:23, the 2 words are used again of Jesus/Wisdom, right after the scripture says he was created. The same words used in Micah 5:2 are used for others who are not God. The psalmist could remember qedem AND olam (ps 77:5).
To Jehovah, OLAM and QEDEM are consistent with the time of Rahab and Creation, "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of Jehovah; awake, as in the days of old [QEDEM], the generations of ancient times [OLAM]. Is it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the monster? Is it not thou that driedst up the sea, the waters of the great deep; that madest the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? Is 51:9, 10 ASV
It does not have to mean eternity.

MTP writes: It seems to me that you twist the words in some of the quotes that you use in your website.  You are correct in saying that the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible.  However, neither does the word Bible and, yet, no one ever seems to attack its name.

Reply: Actually, that's not true. The equivalent word "scriptures" is in the Bible, and has been translated as *Bible* by various translators such as Beck (Matt 21:42) and the Living Bible (2Tim 3:16). We have no equivalent for the word or concept of the Trinity. It is simply not in the Bible, period.

GCM on Monogenes Theos: This gets very confusing to me when we are told that "begetting" someone denotes a physical act. This makes it sound as if God came around a got a young teenaged girl pregnant.  Certainly, this would be a corrupt interpretation of the scripture.

Reply: Biblically, begetting does not denote a physical act, and I don't know anyone besides you who thinks that.
Matt 1:2: "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram etc etc etc" ASV. None of these men gave birth to their sons.
Begetting denotes a filial relationship, like the one between Father and Son.

GCM with his spelling errors: I appreciate your response.  Using this reference in your reply, a man cannot beget a child without the agency of a woman. Yes, Abraham did beget Isaac. He needed Sarah to do that. Your response substaniate the fact that begetting is physical.  These were physical people, made by sperm and ovum. My purpose was to only point out why I thought the word Unique is a better translation. The superimposing of our beliefs, fears, and predjudices on the word of God is the evil that seperates.

Reply: If we look at the parallel genealogy in Luke 3, we see something interesting in verse 38:
"the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
Again, the Bible does not look upon "begetting" or the parallel "the son of" as having to include a woman, as God did not need a woman to produce his son, Adam. Adam's birth then, is also *unique.* By robbing the text of "begotten" in place of unique, though, removes the filial father/son relationship that is important to the theology of the Greek scriptures.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

metatron3@gmail.com

Responding to Got Questions Ministries on the New World Translation

My Response to Got Questions Ministries on the New World Translation

The other day I saw someone post a page from Got Questions Ministries entitled Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible? See https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html

What made me post about this page was the glaring mistakes made within it.

For instance, they state "Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as 'a god.'"

Reply: That's not true. John 10:33 in the Greek is APEKRIQHSAN AUTW OI IOUDAIOI PERI KALOU ERGOU OU LIQAZOMEN SE ALLA PERI BLASFHMIAS KAI OTI SU ANQRWPOS WN POIEIS SEAUTON QEON/theon which the New World Translation renders as "The Jews answered him:  "We are stoning you,  not for a fine work,  but for blasphemy,  even because you,  although being a man,  make yourself a god."

After this, Got Questions Ministries writes: "Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as 'God.'"

Reply: Three verses after John 1:1 is verse 4, and theos is not mentioned at this verse. However, the aim of the NWT was NOT to insert an indefinite article at all places where there was no article present, but the purpose was to include one as has been in done at other predicate nominative constructions.

See also Jason BeDuhn on John 1:1 in the New World Translation

Besides this the page makes an underwhelming case against the NWT at John 1:1. It glosses over the fact that the New World Translation renders the Greek term word staurós as "torture stake," even though lexically "stake or pole" is the primary definition of stauros. See Strong's 4716 and Thayer's Lexicon. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words adds:

"The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ."

Got Questions Ministries objects that "The New World Translation does not translate the words sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus as 'hell.'"

Reply: Why in the hell would you translate four different words with the same one word (pun intended)? Sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus are place names, they are not all the same place. That's like me saying that Edmonton, New York and Manchester are all Disneyland.

Got Questions Ministries adds that The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word parousia.

Reply: Again, my Thayer's Lexicon, Vine's and Strong's dictonaries give "presence" as a definition for Parousia.

Got Questions Ministries tells us that "In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word 'other' despite its being completely absent from the original Greek text."

Reply: This is true. "A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Chrisitian Literature" by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".

For instance:

Luke 21:29
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV)
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)
“Notice the fig tree, or any other tree." New Living Translation (NLT)

Luke 11:42
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT
"and all the other herbs." TEV
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version

In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but translators felt a need to put it in there. In certain contexts, "other" is a legitimate part of PAS.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

See a local listing for this book here

Questions on the New World Translation and John 1:1 Answered

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

See a local listing for this book here

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks, (Amazon and PDF) click here

Answering Questions on the New World Translation and John 1:1
Unless other wise stated, all Scriptures will be from the American Standard Version 1901
  "When the Grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through." A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 389

From an Email: Now one of the most troubling things to me in Watchtower theology is the rendering of John 1:1. You say “Christ the Word is ‘a god’ according to John 1:1 in the New World Translation.” Your translators say the small “g” from the word god is required because the Greek word used for God (theos) is not preceded by a definite article “the”(ho). (Should you believe in the Trinity? P. 26)
What the Greek Really Says
You are right in saying that in John 1:1 the Greek word for God is not preceded by a definite article. However, good Greek scholarship agrees that this dose not mean it should be translated “god” with a small “g.” The definite article is omitted because of a somewhat technical rule of Greek grammar.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t know all that much about Greek grammar, but I do understand enough to know what these Greek scholars are talking about, and have enough faith in God that he would inspire these men to translate the Greek manuscripts correctly. Now what Greek scholars say is that a definite predicate nominative (theos) that precedes a verb dose (sic) not have to have the definite article(ho). The order of Greek words in the last clause of John 1:1 is “God was the Word” (theos en ho logos). The subject of the sentence is “the Word,” the verb is “was,” and the predicate nominative is “God.” Usually the predicate nominative follows the verb, but in this case it precedes it; and since it precedes the verb no article is necessary. I know that it is very hard to understand, and I tried to give you the best understanding possible.
When a Greek writer wanted to stress the quality of the person or thing that was in the predicate nominative case, he would put it before the verb rather than after it. This is what John did to stress the fact that the Word (Christ) possesses the qualities of Godhood. This fundamental principle of Greek grammar supports the deity of Christ and gives no support whatsoever to the translation “The Word was a god.” The intent of John could be rendered in English, “The Word was fully God.”
 
Reply: I pressed Jason for more information of this rule, he replied:

"The rule I was talking about is actually explained in the Letter its self. I know its kind of hard to catch, but the rule is that the definite predicate nominative (Theos,God) that precedes the verb (En, was) dose not have to have the definite article (Ho, the). You see in the actual Greek the verse is rendered "God was the word" (Theos en ho logos) Therefore no definite article is needed. Also an interesting thought, is that "God" which is a definite predicate nominative, can't be preceded by an indefinite article "a." You can look that up in any college English text book. Also for the "rule" we were talking about in Greek grammar; look up reference to that in Thayer's Greek-English lexicon. I specifically give you Thayer as a reference, because he himself did not believe Jesus was God, and did not believe the bible was completely accurate, yet translates just what it says in the Greek, not changing it to mold to his believe. That might help you a little I hope =). But im Glad you have decided to write back a rebudle to my letter. Rarely do I see witnesses scrutinize what I send them with an actual letter back to me. Im very interested to see what you can get out of God's word to argue what iv said. Very good brother, God bless you."

I initially replied:

"I think you are being too harsh on Thayer. Despite the ad hominem attack on Thayer, that what is called 'Thayer's Lexicon', is mostly the work of Lutherans Wilke and Grimm in Greek and Latin, which were translated into English by Joseph Henry Thayer, who was a Congregationalist and NOT an Unitarian [see: George Huntston Williams, The Harvard Divinity School, Boston, The Beacon Press, 1954, p. 147 and The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. 26, p. 490.]
Are you referring to Colwell's rule of grammar ["God" which is a definite predicate nominative, can't be preceded by an indefinite article "a?"]
I just finished reading the reference in Thayer's Greek Lexicon, and it mentions nothing of this rule of grammar, that I can see. Perhaps you can be more specific, or give me a reference I can work with. Sorry to be troublesome, but I am presently working on your response, and this information will help me out."

Jason replied:

>>You know what, maybe I was mistaken about the reference to the rule, I was just going off of memory. Let me go through my notes and get back to you on that. Sorry about that. Also, just to let you know, you can be as troublesome as you'd like. You need to be very assertive and scrutinize everything when studying the bible. So any mistakes you come across, let me know.
...Here, I don't have this book myself, but im sure it would be in here, try looking at "Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" because there is a section in there that talks about Theos with and with out the article on page 139. I hope that helps.

I appreciate that candor. Since Thayer was not forthcoming, I decided to take a look at Dana and Mantey's grammar on page 139:

"vi. The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of QEOS is highly instructive. A study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden's Concordance convinces one that without the article QEOS signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is chiefly in view. There is keen discernment in Webster's statement. published as far back as 1864:
'QEOS occurs without the article (1) where the Deity is contrasted with what is human, or with the universe as distinct from its Creator, or with the nature and acts of evil spirits, (2) when the essential attributes of Deity are spoken of, (3) when operations proceeding from God are appropriated to one of the three Divine Persons, (4) when the Deity is spoken of as heathens would speak, or a Jew who denied the existence of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But the article seems to be used (1) when the Deity is spoken of in the Christian point of view, (2) when the First Person of the blessed Trinity is specially designated, unless its insertion is unnecessary by the addition of PATHR or some distinctive epithet (op. cit., p. 29).'
This analysis is doubtless more exact and detailed than the facts will support, but it certainly shows admirable discrimination. Surely when Robertson says that QEOS as to the article, "is treated like a proper name and may have it or not have it" (R. 761), he does not mean to intimate that the presence or absence of the article with QEOS has no special significance. We construe him to mean that there is no definite rule governing the use of the article with QEOS so that sometimes the writer's viewpoint is difficult to detect, which is entirely true. But in the great majority of instances the reason for the distinction is clear. The use of QEOS in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. PROS TON QEON points to Christ's fellowship with the person of the Father; QEOS HN O LOGOS emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter applies to character. This distinction is in line with the general force of the article. It may be seen even in the papyri, as O FWS EK FWTOS, QEOS ALHQINOS, 0 Light of light, true God, where the emphasis is clearly on God's character rather than His personality (Milligan: op. cit., p. 134).
vii. The articular construction emphasizes identity; the anarthrous construction emphasizes character. If the student will turn to Rom. 8:1ff. and apply this principle, be will find how illuminating it becomes in actual interpretation. It is certain that one engaged in exegesis cannot afford to disregard the article. The New Testament justifies the observation of Buttmann that "the use of the article has everywhere its positive reason" (Bt. 88)."

Dana and Mantey go on to confirm on page 141 that "There are no 'rules' for the use of the definite article in Greek..."
We have an interesting statement though on pages 148 and 149:.

"The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to that we have in John 1:1, KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS, and the word was deity.  The article points out the subject in these examples.  Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article was also used with QEOS.  As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in QEOS." pp. 148, 149

Again, we have an excellent example of how we can translate John 1:1c with Xenophon's Anabasis, "the place was a market, i.e., the Word was a god. But notice how the language becomes confused:
"Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God." This is not an even parallel at all. A truthful and equivalent statement SHOULD be, "Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word the only God." The reasons for this strange turn of language is made quite clear in the following sentence, where he wants to implicate "the other persons of the Trinity."
When Dana & Mantey speak of the "essence of divine nature" they are mentioning something of import to their target audience, but the idea and words are foreign to the Johannine prologue.
Additionally, you stated that your "Greek Scholars" make assumptions that the predicate nominative in John 1:1c is definite.
This is referring to Colwell's rule of grammar:

"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . The opening  verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before theos] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, "My Lord and my God"]. (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), 12-21. Cf. also B. M. Metzger, "On the Translation of John 1:1," Expository Times, LXIII (1951-52), 125 f., and C. F. D. Moule, The Language of the New Testament, Inaugural Lecture, delivered at Cambridge University on May 23, 1952, pp. 12-14.)"

There are problems with Colwell's Rule, and NO Greek scholar today worth his salt would defend it. The following is from an online conversation between Robert Hommel and Professor Jason Beduhn:

"The problem arises when Colwell himself - and many who followed him - affirmed the consequent of his Rule - that is, "Anarthrous pre-copulative PNs are usually definite." His perfectly valid descriptive Rule was inverted to become a logically invalid and inductively falsifiable prescription for translation. Colwell did not define the converse of his Rule in his article, but he begins to assume it, and finally overtly applies it to John 1:1c.
When most scholars refer to Colwell's rule, they rightly quote the Rule as stated - and it is a valid rule (and useful in the field of textual criticism). However, when they commit the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, and then apply the result to John 1:1, they are, indeed, creating an "imaginary rule.""
http://www.republika.pl/arekwis/doktryna/trojca/hommelvsbeduhn.html
Dr.J.Beduhn and R.Hommel: A Discussion upon the translation of John 1:1c.
(occurring Jan/Feb, 2002 on Christian Apologetics Research Ministry JW discussion board)

Donald E. Hartley Th.M, Ph.D also has an interesting article on this at https://bible.org/article/revisiting-colwell-construction-light-masscount-nouns entitled
Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns:

Third, Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to John 1:1, for laying the groundwork of a logical blunder.  Colwell’s rule “Definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb usually lack the article” came to be seen as “Anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite.” We have affirmed, based on our study, that Colwell’s original rule is valid but the converse of his rule is inductively falsifiable. In fact our study confirms that within the NT as a whole, this semantic category (definiteness) is certainly not the expected nuance of the construction, and not the predominant sense when it comes to singular count nouns as well. Thus this converse is neither true of the whole nor of its parts. So although definiteness is a possible semantic category, it is certainly not the probable one regarding anarthrous constructions. In addition, although the converse of Colwell’s rule is not formally illogical, it is inductively falsifiable.
Fourth, Colwell seems to have misunderstood what a definite semantic to the noun entailed linguistically.  His improper method of prescription, based on his analysis, led him to commit a category mistake by foisting a se-mantic upon a certain group of nouns (pre-copulative PNs) that he failed to appreciate on their own terms. Because of this, and apparently without considering the ramifications of what the semantic suggested, he applied it to John 1:1c and argued against the indefinite or qualitative sense. But this was an improper use of his own rule, for his rule was only to be applied post hoc to nouns clearly understood to be definite from context. But here is where the prob-lem of his method shows up starkly. Because John 20:28 has the articular qeov", he assumes that its pre-copulative anarthrous occurrence bears the same semantic. But this is simply an example of pigeonholing a noun into a semantic box based completely on the semantics born out in a separate construction. Count nouns can bear different nuances without the article than it can with the article—Colwell has not properly understood this principle.  In short he begged the question by making his rule prescriptive rather than descriptive of the majority of cases involving definite nouns preceding the copulative verb.

Murray Harris relates according to this rule:

"b. Evaluation of the Rules
(1) There can be no doubt that the formulation of these rules that cover NT usage represented a significant advance on the three general observations concerning the use of the article with predicate nouns that are found in the older NT grammars (e.g., Robertson, Grammar 767-68), viz., (a) that predicate nouns tend to be anarthrous; (b) that predicate nouns that are generic are anarthrous; 52 and (c) that predicate nouns in convertible propositions are articular.
With this said, one should not overlook the definite limitations of the rules.
(2) Colwell himself notes ("Rule" 16-17, 17 n. 12) that the rules do not apply to constructions where there is an ellipsis of the copula or to qualitative nouns. And it is clear from the last two rules that proper names (2c) and predicate nominatives in relative clauses (2d) are themselves exceptions to the principal exceptions (viz., 2a and 2b). Examples that fitted any of these four categories were not included in Colwell's statistical analysis.
(3) It must remain uncertain whether the inference Colwell drew from his study may stand, viz., that a predicate noun which precedes the copula "is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it" ("Rule" 21). In fact the reverse would seem to be the case, as Colwell himself first stated it: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article" ("Rule" 20). The difficulty is simply this. How can one determine the definiteness of a noun which is anarthrous? For example, is PROFHTHS definite or indefinite in Mark 11:32 and John 4:19? The only indisputable datum about an anarthrous noun is that it lacks the article. Particularly in the application of rule 2b-often referred to as "Colwell's rule"-a considerable element of subjectivity comes into play and there is the constant danger of arguing in a circle by assuming from the context that a particular anarthrous predicate noun is definite and then finding in its placement before the copula the confirmation of its definiteness. Whether in the subject or predicate, an articular noun is definite with regard to what is signified. An anarthrous noun in the subject or predicate, on the other hand, may be either indefinite or definite, but the presumption ought to be that it is either (1) indefinite (since Greek has, in the article, a means of making definiteness unambiguous), until it has been shown to be definite from the context (both immediate and general), or (2) qualitative, whatever be its state of definiteness. This leads me to affirm that one may not infer (as is often done) from rule 2b that anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the verb are usually definite. Indeed, such nouns will usually be qualitative
in emphasis."
Jesus as God, Murray Harris, pp. 311, 312

According to Rodney J. Decker:
"Definiteness is assumed, not proven by the rule. It is not valid to use the rule to establish definiteness....The converse of the rule may not be assumed. That is, it is not true that because a predicate noun precedes a copulative verb, it is therefore definite." The entire article can be downloaded by clicking here. Professor Furuli adds:

"Contrary to what Bowman says, Colwell himself laid the foundation for the misuse of his rule by applying it to John 1:1 (See page 21 of Colwell's JBL article.) Bruce M. Metzger, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today 10.1 (April 1953), pp. 65-85, also must share some of the responsibility for the general abuse of the rule. He stated that the translators of the NWT, by translating "the Word was a god," overlooked entirely "an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering ... and the Word was God." Metzger is a respected scholar who has done much good work with the Greek text of the NT. His words may have been written because of his theological differences with Jehovah's Witnesses. I think he would have expressed himself more cautiously today. However, such inaccurate statements are still used as authoritative, for instance, by Robert Countess, The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982), p. 53."
P. 215 n.31 The Role Of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation

What it comes down to is that Colwell's Rule says if a definite predicate noun precedes the copulative, then it tends to be anarthrous. It is wrong to deduce from this, "if an anarthrous predicate noun precedes the copulative, then it tends to be definite." This is the erroneous conclusion of Colwell himself, and host of others have followed suit. It is like saying that if a man is a citizen of North Carolina, then he is a citizen of the United States, which is true, but false if we use this to prove the converse, that if a man is a citizen of the United States, then he is also a citizen of North Carolina.
Walter Martin even goes so far as to misquote Colwell's Rule:

"Colwell's rule clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (Theos-God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb." Kingdom of the Cults, 1977, 75

What Colwell said was that it usually lacks the article, and then submits 15 instances that are exceptions:
Lu 4:41; John 1:21; 6:51; 15:1; 2 Pet 1:17; Rom 4:13; 1 Cor 9:1, 2; 11:3, 25; 2 Cor 1:12; 3:2, 17; Rev 19:8; 20:14 (see Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 18). Further recommended reading is Paul Stephen Dixon's article: "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John" from the Faculty of the Dept. of New Testament Literature and Exegesis-Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1975;
Philip B. Harner's Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1, JBL 92 (1973), pp. 75-87;  and Professor Rolf Furuli's The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation.

According to Harner's study, John has 53 examples of anarthrous predicate nominatives occurring before the verb, 26 of them being indefinite, with possibly 11 more being indefinite.
When we use count nouns (nouns that can be counted, as opposed to ones that cannot, like "flesh" or "love"), we also arrive at an interesting conclusion.
The following chart shows pre-verbal singular count nouns, as in, and excluding John 1:1c, as rendered in the NIV:
We must remember that the Greek does NOT have an indefinite article ("a"), but they are deemed necessary when translating into English.
The RED indicates Qualitativeness according to Dixon's Thesis, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative In John."
The BLUE indicates "Probably Qualitative, but Possibly Definite" according to Dixon.

Scripture	NIV Rendering with the definite article	NIV Rendering with indefinite article	No article rendered
John 1:49	You are the King of Israel		Beck's Bible, WEB
John 3:29	The bride belongs to the bridegroom
John 4:19		Sir...I can see that you are a prophet
John 5:10	It is the Sabbath
John 5:27	he is the Son of Man		Young's, Rotherham, Montgomery
John 6:70		one of you is a devil
John 8:33			We are Abraham's descendants
John 8:34		everyone who sins is a slave to sin
John 8:37			you are Abraham's descendants
John 8:42			If God were your Father
John 8:44		He was a murderer
John 8:44		for he is a liar
John 8:48		you are a Samaritan
John 8:54			you claim as your God
John 9:17		He is a prophet
John 9:24		this man is a sinner
John 9:25		he is a sinner
John 9:28			you are this fellow's disciple
John 10:1		the man who...is a thief
John 10:2	The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep		Young's, Rotherham, 20h Century NT
John 10:13		he is a hired hand
John 10:36			I am God's Son
John 12:6		he was a thief
John 18:35		Am I a Jew?
John 18:37		You are a king then?
John 18:37		I am a king
John 19:21			claimed to be king of the Jews

John 3:29 is rendered indefinitely as "The [one] having the bride a bridegroom is." The Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation by the Reverend Alfred Marshall D. Litt.
John 5:10 is rendered with the indefinite article in the Good News Bible, Beck's Bible, God's Word, Emphatic Diaglott, Kleist & Lilly NT, Weymouth's NT, and Young's Literal Translation.
John 5:27 is rendered with the indefinite article in the World English Bible, Kleist & Lilly NT, Smith & Goodspeed's An American Translation, Emphatic Diaglott, Revised Version-Improved and Corrected.
John 10:2  is rendered with the indefinite article in the Weymouth NT (ftn.), Barclay's NT, Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, and the Emphatic Diaglott.

As we can see, most of the above examples can make a claim for indefiniteness. They are even more indefinite than the ones labelled qualitative.

Qualitativeness does not rule out indefiniteness, just like indefiniteness does not rule out qualitativeness. We simply cannot get away from the fact that the majority of Bible translations and versions have translated the above in the indefinite, not in the qualitative. John 4:19 was not translated "prophet-like," but "a prophet." John 6:70 was not translated "devil-like" or "devilish," but "a devil" despite the fact that the New International Version is a dynamic equivalent version.
Not only is it that "the predicate nominative describes the class to which the subject belongs" (See Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace, p. 41), but anarthrousness often proves that you are not the only one in that class.

At Mark 1:3, Wuest says of "The Voice" [FWNH], "no definite article in the Greek text. The Baptist was not the only mouthpiece of God sent to Israel." (P. 13, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest)
On Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a market, Dana & Mantey's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament state that the place was not the only market. How does this usage compare with the above list?
At John 1:49, though Jesus was uniquely THE King of Israel, he was not the only one to bear that title. He can although, bear the traits of a king.
The bridegroom at John 3:29 is modified by the present active verb ECWN (echon).
At John 4:19, Jesus was not the only prophet.
The Sabbath at John 5:10 was not the only such sabbath.
At John 5:27, though Jesus was uniquely THE Son of Man, he was not the only one who can claim that title.
Judas, at John 6:70 was not THE devil, or the only slanderer in the Bible, and he certainly shared the qualities/traits of Satan without actually being the devil.
John 8:33 is modified by the possessive construction.
In John 8:34, the indicated slave was not the only such slave....and so on.
At John 1:1c, Jesus was not the only God mentioned in the Bible, and he was not THE God. He did share the qualities/traits of God.

"Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone." Appendix 1950 edition NWT

Note the appendix in the NWT 1984 Ed., where they said that the translations "a god" do so

"because the Greek word (the·os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os'. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression, that is, the·os' preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os'. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.
In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering."

The above chart also attests that their translation, as that of the Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, Belsham, Priestley, etc, are superior.
The following excerpt is from William Loader, PhD in his excellent book:

"The Word was 'God'
The gospel begins with the words, 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was theos (`God').' 'The Word was theos' must not be isolated and made into a simple equation: the Word
was God. Grammatically this is a possible translation, but not the only one. The statement's meaning, and so its translation, must be determined by its context. It could also be translated: 'the Word was a god' or 'the Word was divine'. Grammatical considerations alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations can be
defended on grammatical grounds.
The Word was God?
Against the first of these interpretations ('the word was God') is the fact that the author has just said that the Word was 'with' God.
If 'Word' means little more than 'words', then it would be conceivable that the author could say: God's words were with him; they are, as his words, part of God himself, in that sense, they are God. Dupont comes near to this in claiming that the Logos concept  refers not to a person but to God's communication of himself. But the
author goes on to speak of the Word as a person as distinct from God, so that this must be assumed also in the opening verses.
Nor is it likely that the author intends to his opening statement to make a gradual approach to what he wishes to say, so that 'the Word was with God' is merely a step along the way to the statement, 'the Word was God' which is repeated in 1:2.
The Word was a God?
The other two translations fit the context more smoothly at one level. Yet their evaluation cannot take place without our making assumptions about the author's wider frame of reference. In particular it is unlikely, given his context within the Christian community and its roots in Judaism, that he would mean that there is more than one God. Langbrandtner reckons with this as the positions of the redactor, whereas the Grundschrift had thought of Jesus more as an extension of God into the world, but such a view on the part of the redactor is unlikely and unsupported elsewhere. 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.
The Word was divine?
This leads us to consider the third translation, 'divine', the equivalent of theios suggested already by Origen, and represented often by the phrase 'Gott con Art' or 'God of a kind'. Should the author have been concerned to say the Word was divine. why did he write theos and not the more usual adjective, theios? The order of 1:1c and lack of the article may be idiomatic in relation to the use of predicate nouns, as Colwell suggests, or it may, in addition,
reflect an emphasis on quality shared without exact reciprocity. This would suggest that the focus here lies not on the person, but on the quality or nature of the Word. Schnackenburg points to 1 John 5:20  ('We know that the Son of God has come and has given us  understanding, so that we may know the truth and we are in the truth, in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life') and understands the use of theos for Jesus as expressing that in him God reveals himself and that he has the same nature as the Father.
What was 'was'?
But what does 'nature' or 'quality' mean in this context? The New English Bible translates, 'what God was, the Word was.' It still leaves open the question: and what and how was that? Brown is right in pointing out that we are dealing with the languase of doxology here. Can we go beyond Bultmann's statement that here is paradox? Is,
as Haenchen argues, the anarthrous theos another indication of subordination of the Son to the Father in the gospel? It would be easy to read 1:l in isolation as a statement that the Logos had once been with, indeed been part of God and had ceased to be so, a kind of emanation, but passages such as 17:5,24 and those considered at the beginning of this discussion indicate much more of a personal relationship of union and love. The claim of shared originality ('in the beginning') and the absence of any notion of the Son Logos as, for instance, 'firstborn' or 'first created' being, normally associated with Wisdom/Logos tradition, is astounding. It is no surprise that such statements provoke cbristological reflection in subsequent centuries. But our task must be to interpret as far as
possible their meaning within the gospel without reading back into the text later attempts at a solution.
The nature of the relationship of Son and Father in the fourth gospel must rest on more than 1:1 and its grammatical interpretation. The term, theos, is applied similarly to Jesus in 1:l8 and comes in the confession of Thomas in 20:28. But the issue is much wider than the use of theos even in the prologue and presents itself as a repeated focus of contention, as the Son makes his claims and the Jews make counterclaims accusing him of ditheism, an accusation constantly repudiated. But we return first to the prologue as presupposition and prelude to the gospel.
Analogous relationship In Logos Wisdom Torah tradition
It is widely recognized that the motif, Word, Logos, belongs within a tradition of thought reaching back to such passages as Prov 8:22-31 and reflecting speculation about wisdom or logos as the highest heavenly power in God's service. One strand of this tradition identifies heavenly wisdom with Torah, Law, and so personifies Torah.
In this stream, Torah is God's and in that sense is God. It is not thought of literally as a person distinct from God, as we have it in the fourth gospel, but remains a personification. Closer to the notion of wisdom or the logos as a person is the stream which finds expression in Hellenistic Judaism (Wisdom, Philo). This belongs within a wider tendency Judaism to speak of the highest beings under God, sometimes to the extent that the kind of interchangeability already present in the Old Testament between the angel of the Lord and the Lord, which Justin later exploited so fully as a christological argument extended to other high beings, including the Logos. Incipient gnosticism doubtless heightened this tendency. It, too, used the Sophia/Logos speculation. In Philo the logos is not only portrayed as a person, the highest heavenly being in the service of God, but can also be called theos, a second god (De Somn. I 229f; Leg. All. III 207f; Qu. Gen. II 62). This is all the more interesting since Philo clearly does not understand this as compromising monotheism, which he stoutly defends. Rather the bearing of God's name seems related to the bearing of God's power and functions."

The Christology of the Fourth Gospel-Structures and Issues, Page 155 by William Loader, Ph.D. and New Testament Lecturer for the Perth Theological Hall, Australia, teacher at Murdoch University as a member of the Perth College of Divinity
Even if we opt for a qualitative-only view, then "the Word was a God" is still superior to the definite rendering "the Word was God."

"Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is by prefacing the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47.

From an email: I would like to also point out, too, that even your New World Translation dose not always follow its no article-small g rule. For example, in John 1:6, 12, 12, the word God dose not have the article in the Greek, but it dose have a capital G in the New World Translation. It is correct to use the capital in those verses, but it is inconsistent with the New World Translation of John 1:1.
 
Reply: You had stated above, which I have placed in bold lettering:

"The NWT translators say the small “g” from the word god is required because the Greek word used for God (theos) is not preceded by a definite article “the”(ho). (Should you believe in the Trinity? P. 26)"

The book, The Elements of New Testament Greek, by J.W. Wenham adds an interesting comment on this though:

"In ancient manuscripts which did not differentiate between capital and small letters, there would be no way of distinguishing between QEOS ('God') and QEOS ('god'). Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: QEOS ESTIN hO LOGOS, which would mean either, 'The Word is a god', or, 'The Word is the god'. The interpretation of John i. i will depend upon whether or not the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god. It will be noticed that the above rules for the special uses of the definite article are none of them rigid and without exceptions. It is wiser not to use them as a basis for theological argument until the student has reached an advanced stage in the knowledge of the language."

Interesting comments, though they do ignore qualitativeness and the earlier use of QEOS/theos for representatives of God.

From an Email: You might also be interested in noting that in John 13:3 the word God occurs twice, each time with a capital G. But in the Greek the first occurrence of the word dose not have the definite article (ho,) and the second occurrence dose. Since both obviously refer to the same person- God the Father- it would again be wrong to assume that the no article-small g has any validity in Greek grammar.
 
Reply: John 13 does not necessitate the distinction as is the case with John 1:1. I cannot rightfully say that the man was with the prophet, and the man was the prophet, but I can say he was a prophet, or qualitatively, he was prophet-like.

From an Email: Another point I would like to bring out is that without the article, theos signifies divine essence, whereas with the article theos suggest divine personality (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 139). Also theos is a definite noun and therefore cannot have the indefinite article “a”.
 
Reply: Theos is not a definite noun in John 1:1c, or else it would have been rendered with a definite article. If you are assuming definiteness for it here, then you are making the same mistake Colwell did, and you are now a Sabbellianist. The anarthrous QEOS/theos in John 1:1c is there to make a distinction between the articular QEOS at John 1:1b and John 1:2. If the Bible writers wanted a definite QEOS, then they could have added the definite article, as they have done elsewhere. There is no grammatical rule saying that the one word QEOS is by nature definite.
Take for instance:
John 10:33,
"The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself a god." Revised Version-Improved and Corrected
“Claim to be a god.”—New English Bible
“Makest thyself a god.”—John Bowes, 1870.
“[M]akest thyself a god.”—Samuel Sharpe, 1881.
“Make Yourself out to be a god.”—Ferrar Fenton, 1909.
“[M]akest thyself ‘a god’ not ‘God’ as in C[ommon].V[ersion,  KJV]., otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses,— ‘gods..[.] gods,’ where the title is applied to magistrates, and others, because in a certain  sense they are God’s representatives. Compare also Acts 28. 6; 2 Cor. 2. 4.”—Robert Young, Concise Commentary, in loc. cit.
“[F]or making a mortal like yourself into a god.”—Andy Gaus, The Unvarnished New Testament, 1991.
Acts 12:22,
"And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man." ASV
"And the people shouted, "The voice of a god, and not of man!"" RSV
Acts 28:6,
"Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god." KJV
"they changed their minds and said he was a god." NIV
There are many such instances in the LXX (Septuagint) also, as in Exodus 7:1; Judges 6:31; 1 King 18:27; Psalm 5:4, etc. (See Brenton's Translation).

From an Email: It is important to keep in mind that when John 1:1 states that “the Word was God,” it dose (sic) not mean “Jesus is God the Father” or “Jesus is the Trinity.” The Watchtower booklet “The Word”-Who is he? according to John (p.6) makes the error of trying to suggest that this is what non-Jehovah’s Witnesses mean by their translation “The Word was God.” But this is not the case at all. As already shown, this clause stresses the divine quality of the Word. John is telling us that in the beginning the Word existed, was with God the Father, and possesses full deity.
 
Reply: John 1:1 does not tell us that at all. In fact, if you are trying to argue that the theos (QEOS) in John 1:1c is definite, and the QEOS in John 1:1b is the Father, then you are equating the LOGOS with the Father, therefore making them the same. I have no problem with Jesus having the qualities of His Father, but having the qualities and traits of another does not make you equal or one in substance/essence to them.

See also  A Definite Predicate Noun When it Precedes the Verb NEVER takes an Article in Greek?!

Does Calling Jesus "Lord" Make Him Jehovah?

Claim: Jesus is Lord. Stephen called Jesus “Lord” (Acts 7:59-60), and we are to confess Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3) “Lord” in these verses is the Greek word Kyrios, which is the same word used for Jehovah in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament.) And I would also like to add that the Septuagint predates Christ by several years. Just from that small bit of information, doesn’t seem rather evident that Christ the Lord (Kyrios) is Jehovah God?

Reply: The above information is not really correct. All manuscripts of the Septuagint contained the Divine Name right up to the middle of the 2nd century AD. ALL OF THEM. In fact, there is a picture of one at http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/requests/3522.htm
ALL extant copies up to the middle of the 2nd century CE contained the Divine Name.
Here is a list of LXX mss that contain the Divine Name:

1) 4Q LXX Lev (b)
2) LXX P.Fouad Inv. 266
3) LXX VTS 10b
4) LXX VTS 10a
5) LXX IBJ 12
6) LXX P. Oxy. VII 1007

and there are 4 others Aquila's (2), Symmachus, and Ambrosian (of a later date).

Additionally, there are limitations to Jesus being "Lord", as he was made "Lord."

"God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:36

Also, from Phillipians 2:9-11:
"every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Jesus is "Lord" only insofar as he was made such by someone higher than he (John 14:28). We confess Jesus as "Lord" only insofar as this gives glory to someone higher than him.

Professor Martin Werner has something to add regarding the use of "Lord."

"A peculiar situation in this connection is constituted by the use by Paul and the Primitive Christians of the Christological title of Kyrios. This title had long been considered, without proper evidence, simply as a transference of the Septuagint name for God to Christ. It was accordingly, overlooked that while Paul did indeed apply sayings of the Septuagint concerning the Kyrios to Christ, there is not one instance of his having done this where the saying referred to God (ho theos), an exception which cannot be accidental. The truth is that the invocation and designation of Christ by Kyrios prove themselves to be a particular instance of the general, but too-long-neglected, fact that late Judaism and Primitive Christianity designated and invoked the angels as kyrioi.

The transference of the title of Kyrios to the angels is already evident in the designation of God as the 'Lord of Lords', i.e. of the Kyrioi. In 4 Ezra 'Lord' is 'the term repeatedly used for the angels. On the other hand, the Apocalyptist, in converse with the angel of revelation, calls himself his 'servant , as Paul did himself in relation to Christ.

In the Christian apocalyptic literature this transference of the title of Kyrios to the angels was preserved, as is seen in the Shepherd of Hermas,  the Ascensio Jesaiae, the Apocalypse of Sophonias 5 and the Apocalypse of Abrahams.

In this connection certain clear examples from the New Testament may be cited. In Acts x, 3 f. Cornelius addresses the angel which appears to him as Kyrie, and with the same address Peter answers the anonymous voice from heaven in Acts x, 13 f, Particularly notable is the passage of Acts ix, 5. Herein Paul does not at first recognise the glorified Jesus, who appears to him on the way to Damascus, and he has to ask, 'Who art thou?' However, he addresses the heavenly appearance,  which was still unknown to him, without further ado with Kyrie. It was clear to him from the first that he had to do with a heavenly being (and certainly not with God himself, who never thus appeared in late Judaism). To such a being appertained in any case the address of Kyrie. Thus certain New Testament evidence is provided of the fact that the title of Kyrios had become a designation for a particular class of angels in the in the heavenly hierarchy. The title in this sense is frequently met in the New Testament  'Kyriotes', e.g. Eph. i, 21; Col- i, 16; Jude 8; 2 pet. ii, 10. In the New Testament this expression generally does not designate any other than a class of angels. In these terms 1 Con viii, 5 is to be understood, this being a passage in which Paul speaks of the many Kyrioi. These were in fact closely related to the many gods, over against whom Paul set Christ as the one Kyrios, with whom the faithful ought naturally alone to seek to deal. This passage, accordingly, provides effective evidence of the connection between the late Jewish and primitive Christian teaching about the Christ and the apocalyptic doctrine of angels. Among the many Kyrioi-angels was one who was marked out in a peculiar manner by God as the 'Chosen' for the office of the Christ and the world-ruler of the final epoch. Within the range of his own late-Jewish apocalyptic thought, Paul meant nothing different from that which incidentally appears in other forms in the late Jewish Apocalypse of Enoch and, later with variations, in the Christian Ascensio Jesaiae. In Enoch lxi, 10 the Christ is ranked, without qualification, among the hosts of angels, and he is, primarily, named together with the angels of lordship' (angeloi tes kyriotetos); but he is also 'the Chosen', who will ascend the Throne of God as the judge of the World, and is entitled to worship. Finally, reference must also be made to a peculiar instance in the speech of Stephen in Acts vii, 30 ff. Herein the angel (angelos), which appeared to Moses on Sinai, is identified with the Kyrios as the pre-existing Christ. The ascription of the title of Kyrios to Christ thus constitutes a remarkable piece of evidence indicative of the fact that, in terms of the Primitive Christian conception, related as it was to the apocalyptic doctrine of the Messiah, Christ was a high heavenly being of angelic kind." pp. 123, 124, The Formation of Christian Dogma

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Colossians 2:9 and the Divinity of Christ

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

From an email: In Colossians 2:9 it clearly confirms the deity of Christ when it states that in Him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”

Reply: It is not that Greek scholars universally reject "divine quality" (they don't), but more to the truth, it is that YOUR Greek apologists reject it.

From http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1999-06/31691.html
"deity" ought NOT, I think, to be categorized as a proper noun here, EVEN if one holds monotheistic assumptions; -THS nouns in Greek, like -TAS nouns in Latin, are abstracts based upon an adjective and refer to quality rather than entity; thus QEOTHS should be understood to mean "what it is be be a god" or "the quality of being a god." One may then  go on, if one wishes, and apply that in monotheistic terms, as "what it  is to be God" or "the quality of being God"--but it is still erroneous, in my opinion, to equate this with QEOS or KURIOS in the sense of a name. We tend in English to use the term "the Deity" as an equivalent of "God." I simply do not think that, even with the article, hH QEOTHS is used like that in Greek. Consequently I think that in Col 2:9 the
meaning is rather that "in him dwells bodily the entire fullness of 'what it is to be a god.'" One may then, if one chooses, understand that monotheistically, but even so, I think, one ought to realize that the Greek text is not talking about a divine person as a divine person but about the quality of being a god.
Carl W. Conrad-Department of Classics, Washington University

In line with this, we have other Bibles that do not use "Deity" or "Godhead" at Col. 2:9.
See also http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/fbf/fulness.html

The following works also have some interesting comments regarding Colossians 2:9:

"1. The word "Deity" or "Godhead" is a translation of the Greek word theotes. In A Greek English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, the classic lexicon of the ancient Greek language, it is translated as " divinity, divine nature. " In making their case, Liddell and Scott cite Greek authors Plutarch and Lucian, and also reference Heliodorus and Oribasius using the phrase dia theoteta ="for religious reasons." The Greek word occurs only once in the Bible, so to try to build a case for it meaning "God" or "Godhead" (which is an unclear term in itself) is very suspect indeed. Standard rules for interpreting Scripture would dictate that the way Paul used theotes in Colossians would be the same way the Colossians were used to hearing it in their culture. There is no reason to believe that Paul wrote to the Colossians expecting them to "redefine" the vocabulary they were using. Christ was filled with holy spirit "without measure," and God him authority on earth to heal, cast out demons, forgive sins, etc. Thus, it makes perfect sense Scripture would say that Christ had the fullness of the "divine nature" dwelling in him. In fact, the same thing is said about every Christian (2 Pet. 1:4).

2. The word "fullness" demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could also have just a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the "fullness" of something that is indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about "the fullness of God the Father" because by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore, the verse is not talking about Christ being God, but about God in someway providing Christ with "fullness." What this verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians: "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him" (Col. 1: 19). That is true. John 3:34 adds clarification: "For the one whom God has speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit."

3. The fact that Christ has "all the fullness" of God does not make him God. Ephesians says that Christians should be filled with "all the fullness of God," and no one believes would make each Christian God.

4. If Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. The fact that Christ could have the fullness of God dwell in him actually shows that he was not God. 2 Peter 1:4 says that by of God's great and precious promises we "may participate in the divine nature." Having "divine nature" does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God. The note on I Peter in the NIV Study Bible is almost correct when, referring to the divine nature, it states: " We are, indwelt by God through His Holy Spirit" (we would say "holy spirit, referring to God's gift. Likewise Christ, who was filled with holy spirit without limits, had the fullness of "Deity."), dwelling in him.

5. The context is a key to the proper interpretation of the verse. The Colossians had lost their focus on Christ (see Col. 1:15-20 above). Colossians 2:8 shows that the people were danger of turning to "hollow and deceptive philosophy" rather than being focused on Christ. What could philosophy and traditions offer that Christ could not? The next verse is a reminder that there is no better place to turn for answers and for truth than to Christ, in whom all fullness of God dwells. There is nothing in the context here that would warrant believing Paul is writing about the Trinity. He is simply saying that if you want to find God, look to Christ. , Christ himself had said he was "the Way" and "the Truth, " and that " no man comes to the Father, except through me." pp. 513, 514 One God & One Lord by Mark H. Graeser, John E. Less and John W. Schoenheit.

And from Jesus-God or the Son of God by Brian Holt:
"Trinitarians believe this verse means God came down and dwelled in a body, that is, Christ's body. The Twentieth Century New Testament says, "For in Christ the Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate." Does Paul mean what these translations appear to say? Notice the next words from The Twentieth Century New Testament: "and, by your union with him, you also are filled with it." (Colossians 2:10) So we can see that, yes, the 'Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate' in Christ, but we also were filled with it too! Does this mean we are God in bodily form? The New World Translation reads "because it is in him that all the Fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily" signifying that it is not God that dwells in Christ but God's qualities. Jesus could then say, "he that has seen me has seen the Father " (See John 14:9.)

The reader might find it interesting to note this is not the first time Paul said someone was filled with 'all the fullness of God.' Notice Ephesians 3:19:

"That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God"-King James Version
"and so be filled to the full with God himself"-Twentieth Century New Testament
"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"-The New American Standard Bible
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God"-New International Version
'And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself" -The Living Bible

Inasmuch as no one would argue Paul was saying we are God since 'all the fullness of God dwells in us,' why say Christ is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him? It seems Paul was stating Christ was full of God's divine qualities, of which he tells us we should be too.
The context around this verse, besides the fact verse 10 says Christians will also be filled with the fullness of God, also confirms this verse is not saying Jesus is God. For instance, Colossians 1:19 says, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Christ)." Was Paul saying all of the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God (note: a separate person from Christ) to have His fullness dwell in Christ? The New English Bible says it was "by God's own choice" His fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him, we see all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it pleased the Father to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God. Touted by some as the strongest evidence for Jesus being God, we find it is quite flimsy. This verse is not saying Christ is God." pp. 97, 98

From the New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation with A Corrected Text, 1808 [A Revision of Archbishop Newcome's New Testament, by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge] adds at Colossians 2:9:

"All those blessings which proceed from the Godhead, and wherewith we are filled, dwell in Christ, truly and substantially."

Take the words of Erasmus, regarding Scripture, and apply it to God and Christ:
"These holy pages will sum up the living image of His mind. They will give you Christ Himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the whole Christ in a word; they will give Him to you in an intimacy so close that He would be less visible to you if He stood before your eyes."

Jesus was not physically the Scriptures themselves, but they portrayed what he was. Jesus was not God Himself, but he gave God to us in an intimacy so close....

We miss the beauty of these words if we read a later theology into them.