>"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
>and the Word was a god."
>
>Let me explain why...and osoclasi has mentioned that Greek
>grammar doesn't demand that it read "a god"...but let me
>tell you why it IS consistent with the rules Greek grammar.

Response: Actually it is very consistant with Greek grammer. By the way I am going to be using the GNT ( Greek New Testament) for all of my Greek grammer.
>
>Thus, in this text, the fact that the word "theos" in it's
>second occurence is without the definite article (ho) and is
>placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is
>significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on
>rendering John 1:1, "The Word was God," do not hesitate to
>use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of
>other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun
>occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, the King James
>version, as well as others, refers to Judas Iscariot as "a
>Devil", and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as "a prophet".
> So WHY is it that at John 1:1, Greek grammar "doesn't
>demand" that the indefinite article "a" be used, but at John
>6:70 and John 9:17 it does? I'll tell you why, IT IS A
>BLATANT AND OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO PROVE THE DOCTRINE OF THE
>TRINITY.

Response: First of all, just because THeos is anathorous (without the article) does not mean that it must be translated as *a god*. For instance, in 2 Cor 5:19 Theos does not have the article and it is refering to the Father, notice the following...

hos hoti ***Theos*** hen en Christo kosmon katallasson eauton.

As that God was reconcilling the world to himself through Christ, now no one would translate this verse as * a god was reconcilling himself..." So this is clear that just because a word in anathorous that it has to be indefinite.

And in regards to John 6:70 the reason that the indefinite article was chosen was because of the context. We already know that there is a real satan, and as a matter of fact we know that Judas is not the real devil, so the definite article would not fit, neither would the qualitative usage because Jesus is not saying that he is the nature of the devil so the only option left is indefinite *a devil*.

Same with John 9:17 we know that there were many prophets, so to call him *the prophet* would not make sense, nor using a qualitative usage, so we use an indefinite meaning that Jesus belong to a class of prophets and is one from many.
>
>Many Bible Scholars feel the same way. In the book
>"Dictionary of the Bible", John L McKenzie writes "John 1:1
>should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God,
>and the word was a divine being.'"

Response: Well McKenzie might feel that way, but he must refute the qualative use of the noun Theos, and must ignore the imperfect use of en in John 1:1.