John 1:1 Distortion

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”

Muslim Argument:

• Muslims render the last phrase, “and the Word was God’s”
• “The Greek form of the genitive case ‘Theou,’ i.e., ‘Gods’s’ was corrupted into ‘Theos’; that is ‘God,’ in the nominative form of the name!” (John 1:16-17)

Rebuttal to Muslim Argument:

• This translation is not only arbitrary, but it is contrary to the rest of the message of John’s Gospel where the claims that Christ is God are made multiple times (cf. John 8:59; 10:30; 12:41; John 20:28)
• There is no textual support from even one of the 5300 plus Greek manuscripts

Jehovah’s Witness Argument:

• “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a God” New World Translation
• While many Bible translators render the verse this way, others see the need to render it differently. In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different. In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹis significant. For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was ’”  Other scholars  and Bible translations point to this same distinction.

Rebuttal to Jehovah’s Witness Argument:

• “Omission of the article with Theos does not mean that ‘a god’ other than the one true God is meant. Let one examine these passages where the article is not used with Theos and see if the rendering ‘a god’ makes sense (Matt. 5:9; 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro. 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Cor. 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1)”
• The ‘a god’ contention proves too weak and is inconsistent. To be consistent in this rendering of ‘a god,’ Jehovah’s Witnesses would have to translate every instance where the article is absent as ‘a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative).’ This they do not do in Matthew 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; Romans 1:7, 17. (See New World Translation and Emphatic Diaglott at above mentioned references.)
• You cannot honestly render Theos ‘a god’ in John 1:1, and then Theou ‘of God’ (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6, when Theou is the genitive case of the same noun (second declension), without an article and must be rendered (following Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument) ‘of a god’ not ‘of God’ as both the Emphatic Diaglott and New World Translation put it.
• The truth of the matter is that Jehovah’s Witnesses use and remove the articular emphasis whenever and wherever it suits their fancy regardless of grammatical laws to the contrary.