John 1:1 (NWT):

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

This translation, the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation is, I think, unique in using the phrase "a god". All other translations use, "God", e.g., the text in the NASB, the NIV and the KJV is identical:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, is there any justification in the original text for making Jesus merely, "a god"?

The New World Translation, the official Bible version of the Watchtower/Jehovah’s Witnesses, translates John 1:1 into English as follows:

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. ^{NWT, 2013}

The Greek text states,

^Αʹ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ^NA28

The New World Translation of John 1:1 appears to be unique in using the phrase “a god” to translate the Greek word θεὸς. Unless I am mistaken, all other versions translate it as “God.” For example, the translation in the KJV, NASB, and NIV is identical:

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Is there any justification in the original Greek text for translating θεὸς into English as “a god”?

John 1:1 (NWT):

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

This translation, the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation is, I think, unique in using the phrase "a god". All other translations use, "God", e.g., the text in the NASB, the NIV and the KJV is identical:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, is there any justification in the original text for making Jesus merely, "a god"?

John 1:1 (NWT):

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

This translation, the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation is, I think, unique in using the phrase "a god". All other translations use, "God", e.g., the text in the NASB, the NIV and the KJV is identical:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, is there any justification in the original text for making Jesus merely, "a god"?

John 1:1 (NWT):

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

This translation, the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation is, I think, unique in using the phrase "a god". All other translation use, "God", e.g., the text in the NASB, the NIV and the KJV is identical:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, is there any justification in the original text for making Jesus merely, "a god"?

John 1:1 (NWT):

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

This translation, the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation is, I think, unique in using the phrase "a god". All other translations use, "God", e.g., the text in the NASB, the NIV and the KJV is identical:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, is there any justification in the original text for making Jesus merely, "a god"?