John 1:1 God/a god/divine

Here’s a comparison table showing how various English Bible translations render John 1:1c — the phrase often translated “and the Word was God.”
They have been grouped by how they render the word θεός (theos): whether as “divine,” “a god,” “God,”  or other qualitative forms.

Translation	Year	Rendering of John 1:1c	Category	Notes
Westcott & Hort (an interlinear word-for-word translation)	1881	(commented “the Word was of divine nature”)	Divine (commentary)	Not an official translation, but supports qualitative view.
Goodspeed – The New Testament: An American Translation	1923	“and the Word was divine.”	Divine	Focuses on qualitative sense of theos.
The Bible — An American Translation (Smith & Goodspeed)	1935	“and the Word was divine.”	Divine	Expanded edition of Goodspeed’s NT.
Moffatt Bible	1935	“the Logos was divine.”	Divine	Uses “Logos”; stresses qualitative nature.
Schonfield – The Authentic New Testament	1958	“So the Word was divine.”	Divine	Translated by Jewish scholar; non-Trinitarian phrasing.
New World Translation (NWT)	1950	“and the Word was a god.”	Indefinite (“a god”)	Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation; distinguishes the Word from the Father.
New English Bible (NEB)	1961	“and what God was, the Word was.”	Qualitative paraphrase	Avoids “divine,” conveys equality of essence.
Revised English Bible (REB)	1989	“and what God was, the Word was.”	Qualitative paraphrase	Continuation of NEB’s idiom.
King James Version (KJV)	1611	“and the Word was God.”	God	Traditional and most familiar rendering.
New International Version (NIV)	1978	“and the Word was God.”	God	Modern evangelical standard.
New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)	1985	“and the Word was God.”	God	Catholic translation, keeps traditional phrasing.
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)	1989	“and the Word was God.”	God	Ecumenical academic standard.
English Standard Version (ESV)	2001	“and the Word was God.”	God	Formal equivalence translation.

A PDF that discusses translations of John 1:1 from various Bibles and language versions from the 16th to 19th centuries. It provides information on more than 140 translations, listing the version, language, publication details, and translation of John 1:1. The document also acknowledges those who provided scans or information about additional versions. All these translations use non-traditional forms such “the Word was a God” instead of “the Word was God.”

🔍 Summary of categories

Rendering type	Examples	Approx. count	Interpretive focus
“divine”	Goodspeed, Smith-Goodspeed, Moffatt, Schonfield	Few (≈ 4–5)	Qualitative: describing nature rather than identity.
“a god”	New World Translation	1	Indefinite: distinguishes subordinate “godlike” being.
“God”	KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, NJB, etc.	Majority	Identifies the Word directly as God.
“what God was”	NEB, REB	2	Qualitative: paraphrase indicating same essence.

---

Comments

The easiest way to understand John 1:1 is to use different nouns, like this:
In the beginning was the woman, and the woman was with the man, and the woman was man.

Here we see that the two words “man” in this sentence have different meanings. And the English uses the articles in exactly the same way as the Greek does: the first is “the man,” the second is simply “man” without the article. These two words actually have two different definitions.

The first “man” answers the question of “who” or “identity”, while the second “man” answers the question of “what category” or “nature.” The woman was not “the man”, meaning “that male” mentioned earlier, nor even “a man,” meaning “a male,” (or another one of the “same kind” as “that male”) but she was “man” with the second definition: “a human being.” This leads us to the reasonable conclusion that the word “man” has multiple meanings and that the nature of “humans” is a composite nature, composed of both male and female individuals.

Does the Bible ever use these two definitions of “man?” Yes, it does. In Genesis 1:27 (NASB) “God created man (singular, second meaning of “a human being”) in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (plural, differentiates them; different identities: Adam and Eve; male and female.)

The WTBTS makes the argument that the phrase “the Word was a god” describes a quality. It means that the Word was not the same as “the God” mentioned earlier—meaning “the Father”, but that the Word was “divine.” The first “θεὸς-God” answers the question of “who” or “identity.” The second “θεὸς-God” answers the question of “what category” or “kind of being” or “nature” or “essence” or “ontology.” Men and women are “human,” angels are “angelic,” only God is, by nature, “divine.”

What things are “divine” by nature?

When JWs get asked if Jesus is God they will respond that many things are called “gods” in the Bible, such as Satan, Paraoh, even people. This is just a smoke screen and a diversion. These other entities that are called “god” are not divine “by nature”. If humans are called “god” it is not because there is another category of humans that have a “divine” nature. Same thing with Satan or demons.

Galatians 4:8 (NASB) However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.

Idols are not divine, they are made of lifeless materials: wood, stone, metals; demons are not divine, they are fallen angels, thus, they are angelic; Satan is not divine, he is a fallen angel, thus he is angelic; an archangel is not divine, he is an angel; Greek and Roman gods are not divine, they were human beings; humans are not divine. Even though they are sometimes called “gods” in the Bible, they do not have a divine “nature”. Thus, even when humans are called “gods” this refers to the role they play in society as a source of power and authority; it’s how they are viewed by others, and how they function in society. It does not mean that there is another class of people whose actual nature is “divine.” People have a human nature. Only God is, by nature, divine.

How “godlike” is the Word?

In their comments on the verse above, the WTBTS uses the phrases “a quality about someone” and “it merely expresses a certain quality about the Word” and “the quality or characteristic of the subject.” Seeing as a person can have many “qualities,” does this mean that the Organization thinks that only one or some of Christ’s characteristics or attributes would be divine, but others are not?

In the appendix heading they use the term “A Godlike One.” In English the word “X-like” means similarity but does not necessarily imply “of the same kind.” Does the Word vaguely resemble the Father? Is he a poor imitation? No, he is “the exact representation of His (i.e. the Father’s) nature” (Heb 1:3). “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9). If you’ve seen Him, you’ve seen the Father. Paul could have used either the word “all” or “fullness” by themselves, but he uses both (a redundancy), indicating a superlative. Jesus has the most complete aspects of deity that you can possibly imagine. He lacks nothing. He shares God’s nature of divinity completely. Just as men and women share the exact same nature of humanity completely, even though they are separate individuals and persons.

The solution

The solution to understanding the qualitative force of “the word was divine” and yet not being the same individual as the Father, is to see that the word “God” can refer to a composite nature, just as humans are a composite nature. This explains why the word “man” can be used in a singular form but refer to both male and female. This also explains why God is sometimes referred to in the plural “we” and “us”. The WTBTS accepts the term “composite” and it fits the concept of God portrayed in scripture as well.

When the word “God” is used in an identifying way, it refers to the Father. Sometimes it is used in a composite way and refers to the “composite unity” of God, other times it is applied to Christ to declare his divinity and Deity because he shares the same nature as the Father.

---

How “-like” works in English

When you add “-like” to a word, it forms an adjective that means “similar to” or “having the qualities or characteristics of” whatever the base word is.

So for example:

• godlike → having qualities like a god; divine or powerful

• childlike → innocent or simple, like a child

• lifelike → realistic; appearing alive

In each case, “-like” expresses resemblance, not identity — it doesn’t mean it is that thing, but that it resembles it in some way.

Here are more examples grouped by type:

🧍People or Creatures

Word	Meaning
manlike	like a man in form or behavior
womanlike	like a woman in manner or nature
childlike	innocent, trusting, or simple like a child
beastlike	savage or brutal like a beast
ghostlike	pale, eerie, or resembling a ghost
angel-like	pure, kind, or heavenly

🌿 Nature or Appearance

Word	Meaning
dreamlike	resembling a dream, surreal
smokelike	looking like smoke
cloudlike	resembling a cloud, soft or misty
shell-like	shaped or patterned like a shell
pearl-like	smooth and shiny like a pearl

🧠 Abstract Qualities

Word	Meaning
truthlike	having the appearance of truth
war-like	aggressive, inclined to war
businesslike	efficient, practical, and serious
godlike	resembling a god in power or virtue
life-like	appearing alive or realistic

🧩 Pattern or Formation

Word	Meaning
spiderlike	thin, delicate, or resembling a spider’s shape/movement
birdlike	light, graceful, or similar to a bird
fishlike	resembling a fish in form or motion
machine-like	mechanical, unemotional, precise

🪶 Summary rule:

[noun/adjective] + like → adjective meaning “similar to or characteristic of [noun/adjective]”