The New World Translation bible rendered in modern Greek has this at John 1:1

Στην αρχή ήταν ο Λόγος, και ο Λόγος ήταν μαζί με τον Θεό, και ο Λόγος ήταν θεός.


The word order of the last phrase, και ο Λόγος ήταν θεός, is different than Greek manuscripts have: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

Would this word order make it translate to "and the Word was a god." ?

In other words, since it's being translated from English into Greek, and the NWT in English has "and the Word was a god," is that what it would be in Greek?


Holly

Hi Barb,

Koine Greek doesn't enter into this at all. 

It's a question about translating from English into modern Greek, as the NWT has done.

You would have to know how to translate English to Greek.  Do you?

Holly

Aug 7, 2012 -- 8:38AM, Barbllm wrote:

Koine Greek enters into this discussion, Holly, because that's the language we are translating.  Do you understand that?

Are you going to respond to any points made in my previous post? 

No, and no. 

Koine Greek is NOT the language that was used to translate the NWT into Greek. 

It's a translation from English to modern Greek.

That's what this thread is about.  Your posts are off topic.

Holly

Holly, the Kingdom Interlinear translation is a literal translation from Greek to English.  An interlinear translation is literal, word for word.  One of the earliest translations written in Koine was the Septuagint, which was used in the NWT and Kingdom Interlinear translations.

As previously noted, other translators, working with their knowledge of Biblical Greek,  concluded that the phrase “the Word was God” should be translated differently. How? Here are a few examples: “The Logos [Word] was divine.” (A New Translation of the Bible) “The Word was a god.” (The New Testament in an Improved Version) “The Word was with God and shared his nature.” (The Translator’s New Testament) According to these translations, the Word is not God himself.* Instead, because of his high position among Jehovah’s creatures, the Word is referred to as “a god.” Here the term “god” means “mighty one.”

You can't say that these translators were biased by the WTS.  Why did they also render John 1:1 the way they did?

And here is why context is so important. For instance, consider what John further writes in chapter 1, verse 18: “No man has seen [Almighty] God at any time.” However, humans have seen Jesus, the Son, for John says: “The Word [Jesus] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.” (John 1:14, KJ) How, then, could the Son be part of Almighty God? John also states that the Word was “with God.” But how can an individual be with someone and at the same time be that person? Moreover, as recorded at John 17:3, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. He calls his Father “the only true God.” And toward the end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (John 20:31) Notice that Jesus is called, not God, but the Son of God. This additional information provided in the Gospel of John shows how John 1:1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is “a god” in the sense that he has a high position but is not the same as Almighty God.

See above.  Now try reading what I posted.