Of course I’m sure that you’re an expert in translating Coptic?

The greek manuscripts (which can be dated VERY early) all read: en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.

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

John wants it to be very very clear that the Word (Jesus) was face to face WITH God, but was a different person than the God (ie the Father) but had all the essential attributes of God. Therefore, Jesus is God but is not the same person as the Father.

John COULD have written it kai ho theos en ho logos which would indicate that Jesus WAS the Father but John didn’t write that.

Or John COULD have written it ho logos en theos which would indicate that Jesus was “a god” but John didn’t write that.

Indeed, cultists and jehovah witnesses rely on John 1:1 saying that Jesus was “a god” but yet are not consistent in their translation. For example does verse 6 say that John the baptist was sent from “a god”? Of course not.

Yet somehow John 1:1 is the only place that cultists want to “prove” that the greek should be translated “a god”. The other 30 times in the NT they deny their own translation.

although if you look at the Coptic transaltions of the NT scriptures , espcially John 1:1 you will find its translated “and the word was a god/godlike”.

This of course totally trashes the trinity, but thats cool becasue its totally bogus anyways.

Good article by the way.

see http://commentary.copticjohn.com/
Note – if you apply the same grammatical rules to john 1:1 as other areas of scripture in the Coptic texts that trinitarians agree with, thus cross referencing and confirming the correctness of the translation, the john 1:1 translation holds its own. I guess you cant have it both ways….

FWIW.

Cheers,

Steve.

Minor nit-picky point, here, but I think you actually mean “verbs” or “infinitives” or “actions” rather than “adjectives.”