DISAGREE.
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: “In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word.” Notice that it says “God was the word.” This is the actual word-for-word translation. It is not saying that “a god was the word.” That wouldn’t make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.
“In beginning was the word...”
(en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
“and the word was with the God...”
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
“and God was the word.” — Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”
(kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.
the correct English translation is “...and the Word was God,” not “and God was the word.”
This is because if there is only one definite article (”ho”=”the”) in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative (”subject”) form (”theos” and “logos”), then the noun with the definite article (”ho”=”the”) is the subject.
In this case “ho logos” means that “the word” is the subject of the clause. Therefore, “...the Word was God” is the correct translation, not “God was the Word.”
But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah’s Witnesses ( of which I suspect you are a member of) maintain that Jesus is “a god,” or the “mighty god” as was addressed above.
Hence, I must sadly conclude that the NWT is NOT A GOOD TRANSLATION of the Greek text. Most every other translation ( Catholic and Protestant ) are the accurate translations.
Of course the Greek isn’t saying, “a god” or “a God” since koine Greek has no indefinite article ‘a’.
As to whether it makes sense to translate John 1:1c as “a god” depends upon your understanding of how the term “god” is used by John and the rest of the NT writers.
“the correct English translation is “...and the Word was God,” not “and God was the word.”
Who translates the latter?
“But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah’s Witnesses ( of which I suspect you are a member of) maintain that Jesus is “a god,” or the “mighty god” as was addressed above.”
Since Jesus said that even humans in their flawed state may properly be termed “gods” I find no problem if Jesus be called “a god”.
If you wish to analyze John 1:1 in the English translations according to a Trinitarian viewpoint I’ll be happy to do so.
“