Quote Originally posted by Deputy Sub-assistant Vice President Alucard View Post
Adding an unjustified indefinite article to John 1:1 that dramatically alters the meaning of the text is a minor update?
The Coptic translations (2nd century) of John renders it as "the Word was a God":

http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/t...coptjohn.shtml
1:1 ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ

In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God.
http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/09/2...s-and-john-11/
When I asked Dr. Ariel Shisha-Halevy, renowned Coptic scholar at Hebrew University in Israel, what a literal, non-theological rendering of Coptic John 1:1c would be, the candid reply was that theolological issues in this verse could not be avoided. “The Word was a god” was confirmed as the literal Coptic reading, with the other possibility being “The Word was godly/divine,” according to Shisha-Halevy.
Translation of a single verse isn't going to change dogma.

There are numerous differences between the King James Version and Zondervan's New International Version concerning the theology implied by rendering certain verses, but that doesn't make any one of the two more real or legit than the other.

Asking theological questions and understand the logic behind scriptural testimony. That can't be ignored. It's the larger context of the scriptures.

The Vulgate in the 4th century contains a number of differences from the Sinaiticus in the 3rd century, but there isn't so much of a corruption over the Catholic church over that, is there?

Also, I was referring to the difference between the NWT in the 1950s and when it had revisions later on, not with the Greek manuscript translations.