Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not know what was in Moffatt's mind when he translated John 1:1 as ... the Word was divine. However, my guess is that he did not believe that this was referring to another "god" that was with the only true God in the beginning. He apparently believed the Greek "Theos" here was a qualitative noun or descriptive noun or adjective and decided "divine" wa ...[text shortened]... ved that the Word was the first angel created by God, called Michael by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
you were not asked what Moffat believed or did not believe, what you were actually asked was why he translated his text as 'the Word was divine".
What are the facts?
Essentially there are two usages of theos. An anarthrous theos and an articular theos. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. This is why Moffat, a professor of Greek translated the text as he did, he understood the difference.
What it comes down to is that the Word has the nature of God and is distinguished from the personage of God.
Now the implications of this are quite serious, for as anyone can see, its a verse that hes been unashamedly and unscrupulously used to support the idea that the Word is God when in fact what the verse is actually saying is that the word is NOT of the same personage as God but is divine.
Why should a Christian be interested in this? because Jesus himself said, 'your word is truth', and its therefore important that a translation reflect the truthfulness of the original text.