Joseph Priestley on the Trinity 1782

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Joseph Priestley on the Trinity 1782

Divines are content to build so strange and inexplicable a doctrine as that of the Trinity upon mere inferences from casual expressions, and cannot pretend to one clear, express, and unequivocal lesson on the subject

I wish you would reflect a little on the subject, and then inform us what there is in the doctrine of the Trinity, in itself considered, that can recommend it as a part of a system of religious truth. For there is neither any fact in nature, nor any one purpose of morals, which are the object and end of all religion, that requires it

If the doctrine of the Trinity be true, it is, no doubt, in the highest degree important and interesting. Since, therefore, the evangelists give no certain and distinct account of it, and say nothing of its importance, it may be safely inferred that it was unknown to them

Why was not the doctrine of the Trinity taught as explicitly, and in as definite a manner, in the New Testament at least, as the doctrine of the divine Unity is taught in both the Old and New Testaments, if it be a truth? And why is the doctrine of the Unity always delivered in so unguarded a manner, and without any exception made in favour of the Trinity, to prevent any mistake with respect to it, as is always now done in our orthodox catechisms, creeds, and discourses on the subject?

The doctrine of Transubstantiation implies a physical impossibility, whereas that of the Trinity, as unfolded in the Athanasian Creed, implies a mathematical one; and to this only we usually give the name of contradiction ......

Now I ask, Wherein does the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity differ from a contradiction? It asserts, in effect, that nothing is wanting to either the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, to constitute each of them truly and properly God; each being equal in eternity and all divine perfections; and yet that these three are not three Gods, but only one God. They are, therefore, both one and many in the same respect, viz., in each being perfect God. This is certainly as much a contradiction as to say that Peter, James, and John, having each of them everything that is requisite to constitute a complete man, are yet, all together, not three men, but only one man. For the ideas annexed to the words God or man cannot make any difference in the nature of the two propositions .....

Why, then, should you be so desirous of retaining such a doctrine as this of the Trinity, which you must acknowledge has an uncouth appearance, has always confounded the best reason of mankind, and drives us to the undesirable doctrine of inexplicable mysteries? Try, then, whether you cannot hit upon some method or other of reconciling a few particular texts, not only with common sense, but also with the general and the obvious tenor of the Scriptures themselves. In the meantime, this doctrine of the Trinity wears so disagreeable an aspect, that I think every reasonable man must say, with the excellent Archbishop Tillotson, with respect to the Athanasian Creed, "I wish we were well rid of it." This is not setting up reason against the Scriptures, but reconciling reason with the Scriptures, and the Scriptures with themselves .....

I therefore think it of the greatest consequence to Christianity, that this doctrine of the Trinity, which I consider as one of its most radical corruptions, should be renounced in the most open and unequivocal manner by all those whose minds are so far enlightened as to be convinced that it is a corruption and an innovation in the Christian doctrine, the reverse of what it was in its primitive purity; and that they should exert themselves to enlighten the minds of others.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

metatron3@gmail.com

The Three Heavenly Witnesses, article in The Liberal Christian

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Three Heavenly Witnesses, article in The Liberal Christian, May 23 1823 (Brooklyn)

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." 1 John v. 7

This passage is admitted by learned Trinitarians lo be an interpolation, and they decline making use of it in support of their hypothesis. I shall first state the proof of its being an interpolation, which I quote from the note on the place in the Improved Version, and then show that if genuine, it would not prove the existence of three co-equal persons in one God.

"This text concerning the heavenly witnesses, is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century.
2. Nor in any Latin manuscript, earlier than the ninth century.
3. It is not found in any of the ancient versions.
4. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, they, have cited the words both before and after this text.
5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subject on which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority.
6. It is first cited by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged.
7. It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament, since the reformation: in the two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinaeus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach.
8. It was omitted by Luther in his German version. In the old English bibles of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and Elizabeth, it was printed in small types, or included in brackets; but between the years 1566 and 1580, it began to be printed as it now stands; by whose authority it is not known. The evidence of its spuriousness is complete, and is admitted by the most learned Trinitarians of all denominations.

If genuine, this text would not prove the doctrine of the Trinity, for,
1. The word persons occurs not in it.
2. It says not these three are one in nature, or one in essence, or are one God, nor, these three are co-equal and co-eternal.
3. It only asserts the three are one in testimony, one in the record they bear.
4. A oneness in testimony by no means requires that the witnesses should be all persons of the same rank, and on a perfect equality with each other.
5. None but distinct beings can be distinct witnesses; if the three were all one being, and God is one being only, they could be but one witness.

See also Over 200 PDF Books on the Christology & Deity of Christ on DVDrom

metatron3@gmail.com

John 1:3, 4, Punctuation, Staircase Parallelism and Caris

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

"What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of men." New American Bible

..."and without Him nothing was made that was made." New King James Bible

I often have people writing to me  and quoting John 1:3 as it is rendered in the New King James Version, in order to prove to me that Jesus was creator. As it is written, in the NKJV, it certainly seems to say that, but once we read it in the New American Bible above, we get quite another picture. Going along with the NAB, is the 20th Century NT, NRSV, NAB, NJB, JB, NEB, BBE, HCSB ftn., RSV ftn., RV ftn., Weymouth ftn, ASV ftn, Anchor Bible, Fenton, Schonfield, Lattimore, Translator's New Testament, Funk/Hoover and Rotherham."

John 1:3 cannot be used to promote a certain dogmatism, as a rule of hermeneutics is that no ambiguous text can be a proof text.

So what happened with John 1:3? As the NAB says in its footnote,

"WHAT CAME TO BE, while the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here, the corrector of Bodmer P75, some mss, and the ANF take this phrase with what follows, as staircase parallelism. Connection with verse 3 reflects 4th century anti-Arianism."

Has this verse been corrupted to quell a certain doctrine (Arianism) as the NAB claims?
The Anchor Bible has this reading, "That which had come to be in him was life, and this life was the light of men" as opposed to the other reading we have in the NKJV. To support their reading, Raymond E. Brown writes,

"These lines are sometimes divided in another way, thus: 3b and apart from him there came to be not a thing which came to be./4 In him was life.' In such a division, the clause 'which came to be' - instead of beginning in vs. 4 - completes vs. 3. This alternate division is found in the Clementine Vulg.; and according to Mehlmann, 'De mente,' it was Jerome's own division (except for one instance). But De la Potterie, 'De interpretatione,' insists that Jerome changed to this division only about A.D. 401 for apologetic reasons. Most modern commentators use the division we have chosen in our translation; Barrett and Haenchen are exceptions. In an attempt to prove our division is the most ancient Boismard, p. 14, gives an impressive list of patristic writers who used it; and he suggests that the above alternate translation was introduced only in the 4th century as anti-Arian apologetics."

JR Michaels, in his commentary on John, also writes:

"But the overwhelming evidence of ancient manuscripts and church fathers is that in the early centuries hO GEGONEN was read as the beginning of v. 4, not the conclusion of v. 3" (John, 25).

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament has this to say:

"It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (o gegonen) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with o gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation.

Bruce Metzger, while stating that none of the arguments are conclusive, does put forth the following in his Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,

"Should the words O GEGONEN be joined with what goes before or with what follows? The oldest manuscripts (P66, P75, Aleph, A [Codex Alexandrinus] B [Vatican Manuscript 1209]) have no punctuation here, and in any case the presence of punctuation in Greek manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more than the reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage.
A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took O GEGONEN with what follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers preferred to take O GEGONEN with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of heretical use of the passage.
The punctuation adopted for the text [O GEGONEN as part of verse 4] is in accord with what a majority regarded as the rhythmical balance of the opening verses of the Prologue, where the climactic or 'staircase' parallelism' seems to demand that the end of the line should match the beginning of the next. (For discussion in support of taking O GEGONEN with what follows, see K. Aland, "Uber die Beduetung eines Punktes. (Eine Untersuchung zu Joh. 1, 3 4)." in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, ed. by Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs (=Studies and Documents, XXIX; Salt Lake City, 1967), pp. 161
-187 (an expanded form of the study appeared in Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, LIX [1968], pp. 174-209), and Ed. L. Miller, Salvation-History in the Prologue of John. The Significance of John 1:3/4 (Leiden, 1989), pp. 17-44."

Note how all the early Fathers took this
verse and how it is when we get closer to Nicaea, the sentiment changes. These stats
can all be derived from the Nestle Aland 27th edition.

"What came to be through him was life,  and this life was the light of men." NAB	..."and without Him nothing was made  that was made." New King James Bible
Naassenes II/III
Theodotus (ac. to Cl) II
Valentinians(ac.to Ir) 160
Diatessaron II
Ptolemy II
HeracleonII
Theophilus 180
Perateni III
Irenaeus 202
Clement 215
Tertullian 220
Hippolutus 235
Origen 254	Adamantius 300
Eusebius 339	Alexander 373
Ambrosiaster IV	Ephraem 373
Hilary 367	Didymus 398
Athanasius 373	Epiphanus 403
Cyril (Jerusalem) 386	Chrysostom 420
Epiphanus 403	Jerome 420
	Nonnus 431
	Pseudo Ignatius V

We can see from the above that the closer one gets to Trinitarian controversy surrounding Nicaea, the more the punctuation changes in favor of showing Jesus as creator. The change is evidently theological, promoting a certain doctrine. It does not reflect the ancient text.
What is "Staircase Parallelism?" Let's start with Verse 1, with the punctuation as supplied the W/Hort Greek Text:
EN ARCH HN O LOGOS, KAI
                         O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON, KAI
                                                              QEOS HN O LOGOS
Now let us try verses 3 and 4:
PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO, KAI
      CWRIS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE EN.
                             O GEGONEN EN AUTW ZWH HN,
                                                           KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN
Verse 5:
KAI TO FWS EN TH SKOTIA FAINEI,
                        KAI H SKOTIA AUTO OU KATELABEN
Or, in English,
In the beginning was the Word, and
                                 the Word was toward the God,
                                                                    and god was the Word.
All (things) thru him came-to-be, and
         apart from him came-to-be nothing not but one (thing).
                 which has come to be in him life was, and
                                                         the life was the light of the men;
                                                                      and the light in the darkness is shining
                                                                                        and the darkness it not overpowered.
It only makes sense here to leave "what has come to be" as part of verse 4.
What this leaves us with, is to focus on the agency of the LOGOS/Word through the use of CWRIS/Caris.
 On page 793 (volume I, Louw-Nida's Greek-English Lexicon ) under semantic domain 89.120, this source makes this observation about XWRIS Jn 1:3:

"It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1:3 to read 'he made everything in all creation,' for in the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the  creation was done 'through the Word.' If one must restructure Jn 1:3, it may be possible to say 'he was involved in everything that was created' or 'he took part in creating everything.'

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament says:

All things (panta). The philosophical phrase was ta panta (the all things) as we have it in 1 Corinthians 8:6; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16. In verse 1:10 John uses o kosmoß (the orderly universe) for the whole. Were made (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of ginomai, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of hn in verses 1,2. All things "came into being." Creation is thus presented as a becoming (ginomai) in contrast with being (eimi). By him (di autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex ou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di ou). Without him (cwriß autou).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of CWRIS in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one."

BAGD has "without, or apart from=apart from someone's activity or assistance"
In this way, the Bible in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3

Even Origen acknowledged this,

"And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages, " showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH [DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this but the Father?"

Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328
The assistance of whom though? Why, by His created Wisdom, Jesus Christ himself:

"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago..
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills was I brought forth-
when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil.
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
then I was beside him, like a master worker, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always." Prov 8:22-30 NRSV

Many do not usually like it when you connect this verse with Jesus, but the parallels are too overwhelming to be ignored. Check out the cross-references of the following Bibles, as they point between  Wisdom and the Logos.
New American Bible: John 1:1-> Prov 8:22-25
New Scofield Study Bible/KJV: Prov 8:22-> John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1, 2
Nelson Study Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3, 18
Oxford Annotated Bible/RSV: John 1:3->Prov 8:27-30; Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
NIV Study Bible: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
MacArthur Study Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
Zondervan NASB Study Bible: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
New American Standard Bible Reference Edition: Prov 8:30->John 1:2,3
Geneva Study Bible: Prov 8:22-John 1:1
Matthew Henry: John 1-5->Prov 8:22
John Wesley: John 1:1-> Prov 8:23
Harper Collins Study Bible/NRSV: John 1:1->Prov 8:22
Ryrie Study Bible/NIV: John 1:1->Prov 8
New Jerusalem Bible: John  1:1->Wisdom; Prov 8:22, 23-> John 1:1-3
Vine's Expository Reference Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
Prophecy Study Bible/KJV by Tim LaHaye: Prov 8:22->John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
NIV Rainbow Study Bible: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
Men's Study Bible/NIV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
Nestle-Aland 27th Edition: John 1:1->Prov 8:22; Prov 8:22->John 1:1,2
Oxford Study Bible/REB: Prov 8:22->John 1:1-3; John 1:1-18->Wisd. 9:1-4:8; Ecclus 24:1-12 Even
 Jesus acknowledges that he is this Wisdom:

"Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation" Luke 11:49 ASV

But in a parallel account we read, "Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city" Matthew 23:34 ASV
Even Paul confirms Jesus as Wisdom, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Cor 1:24 ASV
It should be considered a very important point that Jesus is here, in the Johannine prologue, referred to as "the Word." This gives us an indication as to why Jesus was also referred to as God/a god/Divine/deity in "the Word was God." ASV
As God's Word, or mouthpiece, he represents God in every way.
In the Bible, Angels were representatives of God, and yet are referred to as GOD.
Let us see what happened to Hagar in Genesis 16. Verse 7 says, "And the angel of Jehovah found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur." The angel then conversed with her.
Then it goes on to say, "And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that seeth. For she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me?"
The context clearly says that it was an angel that spoke to her, but her reaction is that Jehovah God spoke to here.
Let us go to Judges 13 where again, the angel of Jehovah spoke to Manoah and his wife. Verse 21 and 22 says, "But the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Jehovah. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God."

Angels were allowed to appear in behalf of God, and even use his name.

Take Exodus 3:2, "And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." But further on down this angel speaks, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God." Look at what this angel further says, " I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

Even God admits that angels can bear his name, "Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him." Ex 23:20

Angels represented God, appeared as God, and were everything that God was to those who saw them. It is more than interesting that the word angels means, "messenger." They were the word(s) of God.
This did not stop with Angels, it also worked with humans as representatives of God.
Judges were representatives of God, as in 1 Sam 2:25:
"If one man sin against another, God shall judge him" ASV
"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him" KJV
The king of Israel sat on Jehovah's throne (1 Chron 29:23) and as such, was God to the people (Ps 45:6, 7). "O god: the king in courtly language, is called "god," i.e., more than human, representing God to the people." Ps 45:7 footnote New American Bible.
Jehovah made Moses "God to Pharoah." Ex 4:16; 7:1.
To go against Moses was to go against God. (Number 16:11; Ex 16:8).
To act against the apostles was to act against God (Acts 5:39).
There is something called the Schaliach Principle which I have explained elsewhere on this site, and I will repeat here:

"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle."

The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic
law as follows:

"One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach]
is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).

George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor
Bible series). Buchanan notes that

"a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He then adds "The New Testament apostles were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this background that Jesus, in the same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

What does this all mean?
"When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we
perfectly see what God is like” Barclay

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

metatron3@gmail.com

The Divine Name and the Divinity of Jesus

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

From an Email: We are told at Isaiah 45:22-24: "Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else. By my own self I have sworn-out of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return- that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear, saying, `Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength.'" Notice how Paul makes a direct allusion to this passage at Philippians 2:9-11 (NIV): "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." At Isaiah 45:23 we were told that every knee would bend in worship and every tongue swear to Jehovah. Paul alludes to this and says this would happen "at the name of Jesus." Why? Because Paul adds that God has shared with Christ "the name that is above every name "-the Divine Name. So, when every knee bows before Jesus and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ as LORD, does this detract from the Father? Not at all! Rather, Paul said this would glorify God the Father!-compare John 5:23. (Interestingly, early editions of the N.T. part of the New World Translation had a cross-reference at Philippians 2:10 pointing to Isaiah 45:23. Their 1984 Reference Bible edition has removed that cross-reference.).... (Above written by Mr. Dave Brown; originally appeared as an article in "The Dividing Line", the newsletter of Alpha and Omega Ministries. Printed copies available.)

Reply: 1Cor.8:6 identifies the "one God" as the Father who is the source of creation. Jesus is explicitly excluded when he is next identified as the "Lord" who is the agent of the one God. 1Tim.2:5 states there is "one God" but then specifically EXCLUDES Jesus from being that one God by saying he is the "mediator" between GOD and humans. Without equivocation or replacing the word God with father, explain how can Jesus be the same God he is mediator for?
Far from being Almighty, Jesus is said to have a God over him before, during and after he came to earth (Mic.5:4, Rom.15:6, Rev.1:6; 3:2,12). Rather than being equal in power, Jesus is said to be in subjection to God even when he is as high as he ever gets (1Cor.15:27,28, Eph. 1:17; 19-22). Mat.28:18,19 says that when Jesus returned to heaven he had to be "given" all authority (power-KJV). If Jesus were equal to God in power, then why exactly would he need to be "given" any authority? (Mt.28:18; 11:27, Jn. 5:22; 17:2; 3:35; 2Pet.1:17) cf. (Mat.11:26-27, Dan.7:13-14, Phil.2:9).

So what of the NAME in Php 2:9-11. We have to keep in mind the context of the passage.
"Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name."
God had to exalt Jesus, and give him a name above all others. Obviously, it is something he did not have before his exaltation, and again, why would Almighty God need to be given anything?
Any authority Jesus has was given to him (see Mt 9:8; 28:18; Jn 17:2).

It never says God shared his name.

But how does this authority tie into his exalted name? Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of NAME/ONOMA, "for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc."
Vine's Bible Dictionary says of ONOMA/Name in reference to Jesus (as "in the name of Christ"). "representing the authority of Christ."

Christians are persecuted for recognizing his authority. Interestingly, the New Living Translation renders Matthew 24:9 as "You will be hated all over the world because of your allegiance to me."
The Message translates Php 2:9 as "God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or anything."
What else can we learn from the preceeding verses in Php 2?
"Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." ASV
Jesus, as the last Adam (1Cor 15:45) would never do what Adam did, that is, trying to be "be as God, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:5) Jesus humbled himself and was obedient to God, and in this, we should be of the "same mind." For this ultimate humility, Jesus was honored by being given more authority than the angels.
Does the exaltation of Jesus push his Father, Jehovah into the background? No, for the Bible never tells us to stop honoring the Father, and this is where I agree with you. Honoring Jesus means honoring the Father, as Jesus definitely made God's name known.
"Hallowed be thy name" Matt 6:9 Revised Version
"I have made known to them your name, and will make it known," John 17:26 NASB

"Around the time of Christ the Jewish copyists began to leave off writing the Divine Name in their Hebrew MSS and substituting the titles Lord and God. The reason was the development of a tradition of superstitious fear over pronouncing or writing the Divine Name. Old worn-out MSS were not destroyed but were buried, because they contained the Name. One Jewish tradition credits the miracles of Jesus to his possessing a writing containing the Name that he stole from the temple. Each time scribes scribes wrote the Name they reverently wiped their pens, some even took a bath! Little wonder that the copying of the Name was eventually dropped altogether by Jewish scribes.
Jesus was no respecter of Jewish traditions (Matt 15:3,6) especially when his Father's Name was at stake (John 17:26). So he and his apostles would scarcely have approved or followed this practice. In the original Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures as used by the apostles, the Name appeared in the form of the four Hebrew letters. This is shown by its appearance in ancient fragments of the Septuagint such as the Fouad 266 papyrus of the 2nd century B.C. It also can be seen in Aquila's version of the second century A.D., in Origen's Hexapla of the third century, and is attested to by Jerome in the fourth century. It can also be seen in the Dead Sea fragment of Habakkuk in Greek.

The Divine Name would thus have been spoken by Jesus and the apostles whenever they quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, either directly or from the Greek version, and so would have appeared in their writings when they made such quotations."
Appendix, 21st Century N.T.

George Howard has done extensive study on the Divine Name in the New Testament and has this to say:

"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries." George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15
In fact, the name Jesus means, "Jehovah is Salvation."
Does the Bible ever tell us to stop using the Divine Name though?
No, definitely not. This name is in the Hebrew scriptures almost 7000 times. This name was in the LXX in Jesus time and it was definitely in the Hebrew scriptures. When Jesus read scriptures, whether he was using the the LXX (Septuagint) or the Hebrew, he read the Divine Name. This name is mentioned more than any other name, and more than all the other titles put together. The math and common sense alone tells us this repetitive emphasis means the Name was meant to last forever.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

metatron3@gmail.com

Understanding Scriptures that Connect Jesus with Jehovah

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Scriptures that Connect Jesus with Jehovah

To be sure, there are scriptures that have indeed connected Jesus with Jehovah. Does this make them the same person though?
Let us compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chron 21:1:
2 Sam reads, "And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah."
1 Chron reads, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

Are we here to conclude that Jehovah and Satan are the same person? These 2 scriptures were handled in the book "Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible" by John W. Haley, and his comments were:

"It is consistent with Hebrew modes of thought that whatever occurs in the world, under the overruling providence of God, what he suffers to take place, should be attributed to his agency."

Did you understand this? The Jews obviously did.

"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder

GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic law as follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach] is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).

Jesus holds a unique position in the Bible, a functional equality if you will. Rev 5:13 tells us "Unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever."
Also Rev 22:1, 3: "And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb... And there shall be no curse any more: and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be therein: and his servants shall serve him."
Jesus is often portrayed on the "right hand of God." (Ps 110:1; Mt 22:44; 26:64; Acts 7:55)

    "He, therefore, can fill any position in the God's universe, and represent his Father in any purpose. This is something to keep in mind when we are looking at the various quotes that are applied to Jesus. As we consider how the NT quotes the OT, we must stress that an "ontological" identity between the persons mentioned in the quotes is not at all obvious." p. 195, Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by Rolf Furuli

Professor Furuli then goes on to point out some examples of this. In Hosea 11:1 the reference is to Israel, but the same words are later applied to Jesus at Matt 2:15. In Jeremiah Rachel is described as weeping over her sons, but this is later applied to the children of Bethlehem.(Mt 2:17, 18) Paul applied Habakkuk 1:5, 6 in his sermon at Acts 13:40, 41, but the earlier application was to the Chaldeans, the later was not.

    "Then there is the identification of John the Baptist with the prophet Elijah. Malachi 4:5 prophecied that Elijah the prophet would come before the great and fear-inspiring day of YHWH. Jesus quoted these words in Matthew 17:12 and said that "Elijah has already come." Verse 13 tells us that the disciples perceived that he spoke about John the baptist. In Matthew 11:14 Jesus states the matter clearly, 'He himself is Elijah who is destined to come." There can hardly be a more way to express ontological identity that to say John the baptist is Elijah! But this is not what is meant, because John was neither the resurrected nor the re-incarnated Elijah. But John did the same work as Elijah, under circumstances which were comparable to those of Elijah." Furuli, p 195

Someone wrote to me once about Hebrews 1:10: "Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes the Greek Septuagint version of Psalm 102:25-27 and applies it to Christ: 'You at the beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the works of your hands.'"

What of Hebrews 1:10 though? George Wesley Buchanan says,

    "The connective "and" relates verses 10-12 to verses 7-9. "Now, (on the other hand,) [with reference] to the angels, it says" (1:7) "but [with reference] to the Son, [it says,]" (1:8) "and" (1:10).  The "Lord" in Ps 102 clearly referred to God. Here it might also mean God, with the implication that since the Son was "heir or all" (1:2) and since it was through the Son that the Lord "made the ages" (1:2), any reference to the endurance of God would also be a reference to the endurance of the Son. In other places the author of Hebrews quoted Old Testament passages that mention the name of the Lord, and in every case the author held the same meaning (7:21; 8:8, 10, 11; 10:16, 30; 12:5, 6). On the other hand, the author did use the name "Lord" when referring to Jesus (2:3; 7:14). Like other scholars of his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah. For example in LXX Deut 32:43, in which the object of worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was Israel, the author of Hebrews applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6). Since the term "first-born" could be applied either to Israel (Exod 4:22) or to the Messiah, the author made the shift. By the same logic, since the "Lord" was a title of respect used both for God and for kings, such as Jesus, he may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of God in contrast to the temporal nature of the angels. If this were the case, then Jesus would also have been thought of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and the earth.as well as the ages (1:2, 10). In either case it does not mean that Jesus was believed to be God or was addressed as God."
    Hebrews 1:10 Anchor Bible/Buchanan

Hebrews 1 and 2 is stressing the superiority of Jesus over the angels, something that almighty God does not have to defend nor explain.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology; _Type, Typology_

“The "type" is perhaps the least understood but most important concept in the hermeneutics of biblical prophecy. Typological prophecy occurs throughout the Bible and can be considered the "normal" way that the prophets, including Jesus, spoke of the future. Failure to take this method of speaking into account can lead to gross distortions of the prophetic message. The non-Christian biblical interpreters of the NT era accepted and used typological perspectives in their hermeneutical work. The NT writers are accordingly using STANDARD approaches of their day to understanding the OT. The typological interpretation of prophecy asserts that the prophets did not so much make singular predictions as proclaim certain theological themes or patterns and that these themes often have several manifestations or fulfillments in the course of human history. The type may have its own place and meaning, independently of that which it prefigures. Typology differs from prophecy in the strict sense of the term only in the means of prediction. Prophecy predicts mainly by means of the word, whereas typology predicts by institution, act or person.”

Scofield and others new about typology and they described in terms like "Type of Christ."
John MacArthur in his NKJV Study Bible describes Joseph as a "Type of Christ."
He provides the following of similarities between Joseph and Jesus:

Both Joseph and Jesus were A SHEPHERD OF HIS FATHERS SHEEP (Gen 37:2/Jn 10:11,27-29)

Both Joseph and Jesus were LOVED DEARLY BY THEIR FATHER (Gen 37:3/Mt 3:17
            
Both Joseph and Jesus were HATED BY THEIR BROTHERS (Gen 37:4/Jn 7:45)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus were SENT BY FATHER TO BROTHERS (Gen 37:13,14/Heb 2:11)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus had OTHERS TO HARM THEM (Gen 37:20/Jn 11:53)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus had ROBES TAKEN FROM THEM (Gen 37:23/Jn 19:23,24)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus were TAKEN TO EGYPT (Gen 37:26/Mt 2:14,15)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus were SOLD FOR A PRICE OF A SLAVE (Gen 37:28/Mt 26:15)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus were TEMPTED (GEN 39:7/mT 4:1)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus were FALSELY ACCUSED (Gen 39:16-18/Mt 26:59,60)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus were BOUND IN CHAINS (Gen 39:20/Mt 27:2)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus were PLACED WITH 2 OTHER PRISONERS, ONE WHO WAS SAVED AND THE OTHER LOST (Gen 40:2,3/Lu 23:32)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus were EXALTED AFTER SUFFERING (Gen 41:41/Phil 2:9-11)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus were BOTH 30 YEARS OLD AT THE BEGINNING OF PUBLIC RECOGNITION (Gen 41:46/Lu 3:23)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus BOTH WEPT (Gen 42:24; 45:2, 14, 15; 46:29/Jn 11:35)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus FORGAVE THOSE WHO WRONGED THEM (Gen 45:1-15/Lu 23:34)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus SAVED THEIR NATION (Gen 45:7/Mt 1:21)
            
Both Joseph and Jesus had WHAT MEN DID TO HURT THEM, GOD TURNED TO GOOD (Gen 50:20/ 1Cor 2:7,8

Does this mean Jesus must be Joseph? Of course not. 

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Divine Name in the Early Septuagint and New Testament

Question: Why the change of emphasis between the Old Testament Yahweh and the New Testament Jesus? Are we being introduced to some rival deity in the New Testament when we encounter so much emphasis on the name of Jesus? That is the way some nearly react when it is suggested that the answer lies in the fact that the N.T. identifies Jesus with Yahweh. Bear in mind that I am not saying Jesus is the Father! Rather, what I am saying is that Jesus and the Father share the same Name and are not in some sort of competition.

Reply: The NT writers had use of the LXX (Septuagint). Did the early LXX use the divine name?

    "We know that the the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)

    When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, Professor G. D. Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 important changes were made in this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the Tetragrammaton was replaced by KYRIOS and abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp. 221,222

    That's right, the Divine Name WAS at one time in the New Testament! Here is a quote from the Catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997, p. 183-186.
    JHWH. The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament:
    "The Tetragrammaton in the christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud.
    The first part of this Jewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense code of rules that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:
    "The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text, hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them toghether with the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them". From the English translation of Dr. H.Freedman.
    The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" translates the original "gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of  the "Minim" where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)."
    So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues  reasoning that here "Minim" is referred to Hebrew Christians.

It's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their Gospel and their writings."

We have seen elsewhere that the omission is due to the expansion of piety, and to honor the Son more than the Father. It was important to lessen or blurr the role of the Father.

    "In pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God's name was not paraphrased with kurios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form [YHWH] in Hebrew or archaic characters....We find recollections of the name in the wroting of the Church Fathers; but they are not interested in it. By translating this name kurios (Lord), the Church Fathers were more interested in attributing the grandeur of the kurios to Jesus Christ." Entschluss/Offen, 1985, Feneberg

    "The strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be 'updated' by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted  distinction between the Father and the Son." ~Rubenstein's When Jesus Became God, p. 74.

metatron3@gmail.com

I Can't Tell How Many Times "Jesus" is Mentioned in the Bible

"Then did he charge his disciples that they may say to no one that he is Jesus the Christ." Young's Literal Version

"Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah." New American Bible

When researching divine titles in various Bibles, it is actually difficult to determine how many times "Jesus" was mentioned. Take note:

NIV   Jesus = 1226  Christ = 499
KJV   Jesus =  943  Christ = 522
NASB  Jesus =  881  Christ = 493
NRSV  Jesus = 1088  Christ = 45
RSV Jesus = 926 Christ = 534
Darby Bible Jesus = 904 Christ = 507
Young's Literal Version  Jesus = 932  Christ 529
Wesley N.T.  Jesus = 951  Christ  = 497
God's Word  Jesus = 1504  Christ  = 516
New Living Translation  Jesus = 1404  Christ  = 536
Douay  Jesus = 932 Christ = 534
ASV  Jesus = 883 Christ = 501
Bible in Basic English  Jesus = 905 Christ = 496
Good News Bible/TEV  Jesus = 1543 Christ 502
New Century Version  Jesus = 1846 Christ 604
NKJV  Jesus = 941 Christ = 530

In fact it is hard to determine even in the KJV using differing software helps.
<Jesus>
983 (in 942 vrs)    QuickVerse 4.0
973 (in 935 vrs)    BibleWorks 3.5
983 (in 942 vrs)    Logos Research Systems

Why the difference? It was common to inflate the position and deity of Christ by adding to the text, and this is something that happened quite early on. When researching Textual Criticism (and reading books like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Ehrman), it becomes clear that corruption in favor of the theology of the mainstream theology of the time happened almost immediately.

Here are a few examples from ancient manuscripts:

John 19:40, "They took the body of Christ" to "they took the body of God"
Luke 2:26 changed to "Christ, namely God." Old Latin ff
Luke 9:20 "the Christ of God" changed to "Christ, God" Coptic
Mark 3:11 "You are the Son of God" changed to "You are God, the Son of God." MS69
Luke 7:9 "when Jesus heard this" changed to "when God heard this" 124
Luke 8:28 "Jesus, Son of the highest God" changed to "Jesus, the highest God" 2766
Luke 20:42 "the lord said to my lord" changed to "God said to my God" Persian Diatesseron
2 Peter 1:2 changed to "in the knowledge of God, our Lord Jesus" P72
Jude 5 changed to "Jesus" or "the God Christ" who saved the people from Egypt P72
Gal 2:2 "Son of God" changed to "God the Son" MS1985
Acts 20:28 "church of God" changed to "church of the Lord" or "church of the Lord and God" various
1 Cor 10:5, "God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness" changed to "Christ" MS81
Rom 14:10, "we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God." changed to "judgment-seat of
Christ" 048, 0209 Byz etc
Matt 24:36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." The Byx mss omit "neither the Son." Interestingly, the Codex Siniaticus originally had "neither the Son", but was removed by a later scribe...and then was restored by yet another scribe.

    "In the second or third centuries, there were, of course, Christians who believed in only One God; others, however, claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or 365, or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as a revelation of the one true God, the sacred possession of all believers; others claimed that the Scriptures had been inspired by an evil deity. Some Christians believed that God created the world and was soon going to redeem it; others said that God neither had created the world nor had ever had any dealings with it/ Some Christians beleived that Christ was somehow both a man and God; others said that he was a man; but not God; others claimes that he was God, but not a man....the controversies that ensued impacted the surviving literature on virtually every level. ...The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines capable of flawless production. They were copied by hand, by living, breathing human beings who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day. Did the scribes' polemical context influence the way they transcribed sacred Scriptures? The burden of the present study is that they did....."
    The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by B. Ehrman, p. 3

These changes did not stop early on:

    "When an intentional change affects the meaning of the passage, there is a demonstrable tendency to move the meaning in the direction of the orthodoxy of the time, not away from it. By 'demonstrable' I mean the even within the Byzantine tradition, the later witnesses are inclined to change things in favor of giving more titles to Christ, not fewer" D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, p. 62

It must be remembered that these intentional scribal changes were made by those in the orthodox position, not by fringe "heretical" groups.

What has the Trinity Done to Our Bible?

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

What has the Trinity Done to Our Bible?, by Heinz Schmitz

I'm a big fan of Bible versions and translations, but after collecting them for over 30 years I have noticed that the most marked differences between them is in regards to the deity of Christ.
The reason being is that the any Scripture than can be translated as stating that Christ is God can also be translated any number of ways.

"When we consider further the fact...that Christ is nowhere called God in any unambiguous passage by any writer of the New Testament and that it is nowhere recorded that he ever claimed this title, we cannot reasonably regard this abstinence from the use of the term as accidental." Ezra Abbot

Let us examine some of these:

Isaiah 9:6

"Mighty God, Eternal Father." New World Translation
"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington's The Bible in Living English
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt's The Bible
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English Bible
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...." Revised English Bible
"Great Leader, Time's Father, the Prince of Peace." The Complete Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton
"his name is called the Messenger of great counsel." Brenton's LXX
"divine hero, father of spoil, prince of peace" Isaiah 1:12 Old Testament Library-A Commentary by Otto Kaiser

There can be no complaint of the above rendering in the NWT, but why do other Bibles not render it so? Isaiah 9:4 makes a reference to the Midian's defeat at the hands of the Judge Gideon. Mentioning him here is no coincidence, as Jesus is the greater Gideon, and all judgement will be committed to him (John 5:22). Now, Judges were also called "God," not only at Psalm 82:1, but also at Exodus 21:6 ("then his master must take him before the judges ["God" footnote]" NIV; "then his master shall bring him to God" NASB) and Exodus 22:8 ("the owner of the house must appear before the judges ["God" footnote]" NIV; "then the master of the house shall come near unto God" ASV).

Romans 9:5

"...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised. Amen." New International Version
"...God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever. Amen." NWT
"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen" New English Bible
"God, who is over all be blessed for ever." Revised Standard Version
"Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all!" Moffatt
"May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!" Good News Bible/TEV
"God who is over all be blessed forever." Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation
"God who is over all be forever praised." NIV footnote
"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen" Revised English Bible
"I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever!" Contemporary English Version
"He who is over all, God, blessed unto the ages." Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
"God is over everyone, Praise Him forever." Simple English Bible
"God be blessed who is above all things forever." Unvarnished NT/Andy Gaus
God who is over all be blessed forever." New American Bible
"God is over everyone, Praise Him forever." International English Bible

Many many others translate it similar to the NASB, "and of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" which also does not contain a reference to Christ's deity.
By translating this properly, we maintain the proper focus of this verse.

"Some editors punctuate this verse differently and prefer the translation, 'Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is god over all.' However, Paul's point is that God who is over all aimed to use Israel, which had been entrusted with every privilege, in outreach to the entire world through the Messiah." Romans 9:5 footnote, New American Bible w/Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms

Titus 2:13

"our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." New International Version
"of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ." NWT 1950
"of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ." New American Bible
"of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." American Standard Version
"of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." King James Version
"of the great God and our Saviour." Revised English Bible margin
"of the great God and our Saviour." New English Bible margin
"of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus." Moffatt
"the magnificent God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus." 21st Century NT
"the great God and our Savior." New Revised Standard Version margin
"the great God and our Savior." Revised Standard Version margin
"our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Contemporary English Version margin
"great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ." Concordant Literal NT
"the great God and our Savior Christ Jesus." Rotherham
"the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Worrell New Testament
"the great God and our Savior" New American Standard Bible margin
"the Great God, and of our Deliverer Jesus Christ" The Original New Testament, Schonfield
"our Great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah" Jewish NT
"our great God and our Savior Jesus Messiah." The Power New Testament-Revealing Jewish Roots
"the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" Catholic Douay Bible
"the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Good News Bible margin

Hebrews 1:8

"But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever." New International Version
"God is your throne forever." NWT 1950
"God is your throne forever and ever." Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation
"God is thy throne" Revised Standard Version margin
"God is thy throne" Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews [Macmillan And Co., NY, 1903]
"God is your throne forever and ever." Byington's Bible in Living English
"God is your throne" New Revised Standard Version margin
"It is God who is your throne for ever and ever." God's New Covenant-A New Testament Transl., by Heinz W. Cassirer
"God is thy throne" New English Bible margin
"Your throne is God for an age of ages." Unvarnished NT
"Thy throne is God" 21st Century NT
"Thy throne is God" American Standard Version margin
"God is your Kingdom" Good News Bible margin
"Great Prince, your throne is for ever and ever" The Complete Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton
"God is thy throne" Moffatt

As to the Nominative for the Vocative use "Your throne, O God," the New American Bible says in the footnote here,
"O God; the application of the name 'God' to the Son derives from the preexistence mentioned in vv. 2-3; the psalmist already used the it of the Hebrew king in the court style of the original. See the note on Ps 45, 7 [which says, "The king in courtly language, is called 'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to the people."]"

2 Peter 1:1

"the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" NIV
"the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" ASV
"the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" KJV
"of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" Revised Standard Version margin
"our God and the savior Jesus Christ" New American Bible margin
"the righteousness of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ" International English Bible-God Chaser's Extreme NT
"the righteousness of our God and our Savior, Jesus Christ" Literal Translation of the HOLY BIBLE by Jay P. Green Sr.
"of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" New Revised Standard Version margin
"the righteousness of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ" Simple English Bible
"the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." Wesley's NT
"the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Third Millenium Bible
"our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" Kleist & Lilly New Testament and Lamsa's Bible
"of our God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Webster Bible
"our God and our Saviour" God's New Covenant by Heinz W. Cassirer
"of God and of Jesus our Master." Schonfield's Original New Testament
"of our God and of our Deliverer Yeshua the Messiah" Jewish New Testament
"of our God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ" Concordant Literal New Testament
"share the faith that God in his justice has equally allotted to us; as well as that of our Saviour Jesus Christ." 21st Century NT

Again, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at 2 Peter 1:1, especially as he differentiates between God and Jesus in the following Scripture, "Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." NIV
Couple this with how the Epistles are usually started, we have to come to the honest conclusion that Jesus was not called God at 2 Peter 1:1:
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God" Romans 1:1 NIV
"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,... Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 1:1-3 NIV
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,... Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Corinthians 1:1-3 NIV
"Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father...Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" Galatians 1:1-3 NIV
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,...Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Ephesians 1:1-3 NIV
"Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Php 1:2 NIV
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,...We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you" Col 1:1-3 NIV
"To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" 1 Thess 1:1 NIV
"To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ...Grace and peace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess 1:1,2 NIV
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,...Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." 1 Tim 1:1,2
"Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." 2 Tim 1:2
"Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ...Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior." Titus 1:1-4 NIV
"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Phm 1:3 NIV
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son..." Heb 1:1 NIV
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" James 1:1 NIV
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" 1 Pet 1:3 NIV
"our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3 NIV
"Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love." 2 John 1:3 NIV

Granville Sharp, an amateur who formulated Sharp's Rule ( if you have two nouns which are not proper names and which describe a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and/KAI," and the first noun has the article ("hO/the") while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person) had other recommendations besides Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 also. He stated that 2 Timothy 4:1 should be translated, "I charge (thee,) therefore, before Jesus Christ,  the God and Lord..." while our Bibles have, "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus..." NASB
He stated 1 Timothy 5:21 be translated, "before Christ Jesus, the GOD and LORD, and (before) the elect angels," whereas we instead have "in the presence of God, and of Christ Jesus, and the his chosen angels" NASB.
He stated that 2 Thess. 1:12 be rendered, "to the grace of Jesus Christ, our God and Lord," while our Bibles have "the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." NASB
He stated that Php 3:3 should be rendered  "who worship the spirit of our God" instead of "we who worship by the Spirit of God." NIV
Granville Sharp was merely an extremist who looked in the NT for instances where Jesus COULD be named God. While many complain of the "lack of scholarship" of the translators of the NWT, Granville Sharp had none to speak of either, yet his rule is embraced and unquestioned where Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are rendered in many Bibles. (see Remarks on the Uses of the Definite Article [ISBN 0-9626544-4-2] pp. 43-54

1 John 5:20

"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." NIV
The NIV Study Bible (also NASB Study Bible/Zondervan) footnote,
"Him who is true. God the Father. He is the true God. Could refer to either God the Father or God the Son."
What do others say?
"it should be noted that precisely in St. John's First Epistle [O QEOS] ho theos, "the true God" so often certainly means the Father that it must be understood of the Father throughout the Epistle, unless we are to suppose that some incomprehensible change has taken place in the subject referred to by O QEOS." Theological Investigations, Vol. 1 by Karl Rahner, Third printing: 1965, pages 136, 137. Compare John 17:3
"houtos: as a climax to vv.18-20 the ref[erence] is almost certainly to God the real, the true, opp[osite of] paganism(v.21.)"- "A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Zerwick/Grosvenor, Rome Biblical Institue, 1981.

"[1 John 5:]20f. Christ has revealed the one true God, the source of eternal life(cf. 5:12; Jn 17:3, 20:31). 'This is the true God' does not refer to Jesus as Stauffer thinks(Theology of the NT.(English translation 1955), 114)." G. Johnston, Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Thomas Nelson and Sons, reprint of 1964.

"Conclusion: Although it is certainly possible that houtos["this one"] refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence points to "the true one," God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, houtos = God, is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter."-M. Harris, "Jesus as God, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus," Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992, p.253.

"We are also aware that the Son of God came and gave us discernment so that we know who is true, so we are one with him who is true, Jesus Christ the Son of the God who is true." 21st Century NT
Once more, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at 1 John 5:20

Philippians 2:6

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." New International Version
 "A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the hymn has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn
The ambiguity I had mentioned earlier is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes.
The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV states that some of the key words used here "had puzzled interpeters" and are "problematic."
Sure, we have the way that Trinitarians like to look at this verse, as is stated in Heinz Cassirer's "did not look upon his equality with God as something to be held in his grasp," but there are many others that do not see this in the same way:
"who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" ASV
"who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" NASB
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" Revised Standard Version
"Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God." Rotherham
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped" TCE
"Christ Jesus, who, when he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as a prize" Bible in Living English
"Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped" New Jerusalem Bible
"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped" New American Bible
"who, though being in God's Form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to BE like God" Emphatic Diaglott
"Who, [beginning] [existing] in a form of God did not consider a seizing, to be equal to God" 21st Century Literal
"although he was like God in nature, he never even considered the chance to be equal with God." 21st Century Free
"who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Revised Version
"Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God." An American Translation/Goodspeed
"who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped" NET Bible
"who though he had god-like form, did not regard it as a prize to be equal to God." The Original NT-Schonfield
[Footnote: "Referring to the sin which Adam was tempted by Satan to commit, and which Lucifer in his former state had committed (Gen 3:5; Isa 14:12-14). Moses is said to have had a divine form, and as an infant to have received the crown from Pharoah's head (Josephus, Antiq II 232-235). The Christ Above of the Jewish mystics had angelic likeness as a Son of God (Dan 4:25-28; Job 1:6-7)."]
"who - did not think it a matter to earnestly desired." -Clarke
"Did not regard - as an object of  solicitous desire." -Stuart
"Thought not - a thing to be seized." -Sharpe
"Did not eagerly grasp." -Kneeland
"Did not violently strive." -Dickinson
"did not meditate a usurpation." -Turnbull
If, as the New Scofield Bible says, that this verse is the strongest assertions of Christ's deity, then those who hold such a position have a real problem.
These verses are about humility, and how, unlike Adam, Jesus did not try to be equal to God. That is why the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to cling to our equality with God? Of course not. To translate this verse in a way that promotes the deity of Christ robs it of its true force and meaning.
But what of the phrase, "form of God" or EN MORFH QEOU
Carolyn Osiek writes that the NIV translation, "being in very nature God," misses the mark since it "overstates the traditional interpretation" by rendering MORFH as "very nature" instead of "form." Osiek goes on to say that MORFH [in the Phil account] does not mean nature, "but form, shape, or appearance . . ." She says more and favors the understanding "status" for MORFH. She goes on to say that "divinity in the absolute sense is probably not being ascribed to Christ."  EN MORFH QEOU appears to be a dative of indirect object that describes "an exalted heavenly figure very close to God," but not one who possesses absolute divinity (Osiek, Carolyn. _Philippians, Philemon_. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000). See page 60.
Also, "This interpretation is enhanced by the rest of verse 6: he did not consider it a hARPAGMOS, something to be seized or exploited, to be ISA QEWi, equal or of equal status to God" (Osiek 60).

I think she has something here regarding status, since EN MORFH QEOU (in the form of God) seems to be contrasted with EN MORFH DOULOU (form of a slave). A slave is not the antithesis of deity. A slave, or servant, has the bearing of status or function among humanity, serving humans while heavenly beings, angels, have also served and held a functional equality with God.
[See Exodus 3:2, 14-16 cf. Acts 7:30-32; Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg 6:12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23; Psalm 8:5; 82:1; 97:7; 138:1.]
They are representatives, and as such, can even bear the title of "God." See footnote Psalm 45:7 New American Bible.
As Buchanan says, "a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him"
But for sure, the notion that MORFH can also mean outer appearance, but too much cannot be read into this as assuming divinity in its absolute sense, as even sinful humans can have a "form [MORFWSIN] of godliness, although they have denied its power." 2 Tim 3:5 NASB

"But Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his preexistent being was in - the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God."-The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. II, p. 80.
"When he [Paul] says that Christ existed in the form of God, he implies that Christ was of the same nature as God, [yes a spirit] that the principle of his being was essentially divine. Since he had this affinity with God, he might have aspired to "equality" with him; he might have claimed an equal share in all the powers which God exercises and in all the honors which are rendered to him by his creatures. Standing so near to God, he might have resented his inferior place and thrown off his obedience. (d) Yet he never attempted the robbery which might have raised him higher….But in Greek, as in English, the word "robbery" involved the idea of violent seizure, and what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but the means of obtaining it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belongs to God….Paul…set the obedience of Christ over against that old conception  of a heavenly being  [Satan] who had sought by violence to make himself equal to God." (e.a.)-The Interpreter's Bible, in loc cit.
Additionally, you may want to check out the book entitled Where Christology Began: essays on Philippians 2; Ralph P. Martin, Brian J. Dodd, editors. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1998.

John 20:28

"My Master, and my God" 20th Century NT.
Why did this NT render it thusly? Consider the construction:
O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU/the Lord of me the God of me. Has anyone checked other occurences of the same type of construction?
Mt 12:47, H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you
49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me
Mark 3:31, H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him
32 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you
34 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me
Mk 6:4 TH PATRIDI AUTOU KAI EN TOIS SUGGENEUSIN AUTOU/the father of him and the relatives of him
7:10 TON PATERA SOU KAI THN MHTERA SOU/the father of you and the mother of you
Lk 8:20  H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of thee and the brothers of thee
Lk 8:21  MHTHR MOU KAI ADELFOI MOU/mother of me and brothers of me
Jn 2:12 H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI [AUTOU] KAI OI MAQHTAI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him and the disciples of him
Jn 4:12 OI UIOI AUTOU KAI TA QREMMATA AUTOU/the sons of him and the cattle of him
Acts 2:17 OI UIOI UMWN KAI AI QUGATERES UMWN/the sons of you and the daughters of you
Rom 16:21 TIMOQEOS O SUNERGOS MOU KAI LOUKIOS KAI IASWN KAI SWSIPATROS OI SUGGENEIS MOU/Timothy the fellow-worker of me of me and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater the kinsmen of me.
1 Thess. 3:11 QEOS KAI PATHR HMWN KAI O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS/God and Father of us and the Lord of us Jesus.
2 Thess. 2:16 O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS CRISTOS KAI [O] QEOS O PATHR HMWN/the Lord of us Jesus Christ and the God the Father of us
1 Tim. 1:1 QEOU SWTHROS HMWN KAI CRISTOU IHSOU THS ELPIDOS HMWN/God savior of us and Christ Jesus the hope of us
2 Tim 1:5 TH MAMMH SOU LWIDI KAI TH MHTRI SOU/the grandmother of thee Lois and the mother of thee Eunice
Heb 8:11 EKASTOS TON POLITHN AUTOU KAI EKASTOS TON ADELFON AUTOU/each one the citizen of him and each one the brother of him
Rev 6:11 OI SUNDOULOI AUTWN KAI OI ADELFOI AUTWN/the fellow-slaves of them and the brothers of them
This same construction usually refers to TWO different people.

"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI"

Acts 20:28

Greek: DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU
The NWT renders this, "shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son]."
The NIV says, "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."
But what do others say?
"care for the church of God, which he has bought for himself at the price of the blood of his own One." William Barclay
"be the shepherds of the church of God, which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." Revised Standard Version
"Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the sacrificial death of his Son." Good News Bible
"to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son." New Revised Standard Version
"to feed the church of God that he bought with the blood of his own Son" New Jerusalem Bible
"Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock that he bought with the blood of his own Son." Contemporary English Version
"Tenderly care for God's congregation, which he acquired by the blood of his own Son." 21st Century NT
See also The Concordant Literal New Testament, The Translator's New Testament, The Holy Bible in Modern English, by Ferrar Fenton and the Darby, Rotherham and Alfred Marshall footnotes.

The Greek word IDIOS, especially when it is articular (see below), demands that a noun follows, whether stated, or implied. If not stated in the Greek, it is required in the English translation to fill the meaning.
F.F.Bruce, in _The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary_ 3rd ed.). On p. 434 he writes:

DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU: "with the blood of his own one; byz reads DIA TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS, "with his own blood." In the present sense IDIOS is the equivalent of Heb. YAHID, "only," "well-beloved," otherwise rendered AGAPHTOS, EKLEKTOS, MONOGENHS. For the absolute sense of hO IDIOS (but in
the plural) cf. 4:23; 24:23; also Jn 1:11; 13:1. (Cf. TA IDIA, "one's own place," 21:6). In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations, e.g. hO DEINA TWi IDIWi CAIREIN ["So-and-so
to his own (friend), greeting']" (J.H. Moulton, MHTI, p. 90).
The more natural way of expressing "through his own blood" in Attic Greek would be DIA TOU hEAUTOU hAIMATOS or DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU hEAUTOU; or one might find an instrumental dative instead of the preposition DIA + genitive, and, of course, the use of hAIMA here has to be viewed as a Semitism. DIA TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS would also be another way of getting to the translation "through his own blood" and this is what the Majority Text/Textus Receptus shows--but that's not in the ancient manuscripts.
In my list below I ask the reader to take note that IDIOS precedes the noun, whether in Greek, or in the translation English.
The word "own" here creates an expectation of a contrast, as in "his own language" (THi IDIAi DIALEKTWi, Acts 1:19, 2:6, 2:8) which is contrasted to someone else's language, or as in THi IDIAi EXOUSIAi, Acts 1:7, or IDIAi DUNAMEI, Acts 3:12, or IDIAi GENEAi, Acts 13:36, or PERI THS IDIAIS DEISIDAIMONIAS, Acts 25:19. If such a contrast is present, the normal, expected order is for IDIOS to precede its noun. This is what my list of comparable Scriptures using IDIOS will show:

Matthew 9:1 his own city.
Matthew 22:5 his own farm
Matthew 25:14 his own servants
Luke 2:3 his own city (Textus Receptus)
Luke 6:41 thine own eye
Luke 6:44 his own fruit
Luke 10:34 his own beast
John 1:11 unto his own [CEV adds the word "world"; TEV adds the word "country"; God's Word and NJB adds the word "people"; RSV adds the word "home"; NLT adds the word "land"]
John 1:41 his own brother [Textus Receptus]
John 4:44 his own country
John 5:18 his own Father
John 5:43 his own name
John 7:18 hiw own glory
John 8:44 he speaketh of his own [NRSV, RSV, HCSB, NASB, NET, NJB adds the word "nature"; EMTV, NKJV adds the word "resources"; ESV, NLT adds the word "character" NIV adds "native language"; Weymouth adds the word "store."]
John 10:3 his own sheep
John 10:4 all his own [KJV, CEV, Diaglott, EMTV, God's Word, LITV, MKJV, NET, NKJV, WEB and Weymouth adds the word "sheep"]
John 10:12 own the sheep
John 13:1 having loved his own [CEV adds the word "followers"; NLT adds the word "disciples"]
John 15:19 the world would love its own [Weymouth adds the word "property"; God's Word writes "one of its own"]
John 16:32 each one to his own [CEV, HCSB, ESV, TEV, NASB, NET, NIV, NRSV, RSV, Weymouth, Beck, C.B. Williams adds the word "home"; LITV, MKJV adds the word "things"; NJB, NLT adds the word "way"]
John 19:27 took her unto his own [KJV, CEV, HCSB, Darby, ESV, TEV, God's Word, LITV, MKJV, NET, NJB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV, NRSV, WEB, Weymouth, Williams, Beck adds the word "home"]
Acts 1:7 his own power
Acts 1:25 his own place
Acts 2:6 his own language
Acts 2:8 his own language
Acts 3:12 our own power
Acts 4:23 went to their own [KJV, Darby, MKJV, WEB adds the word "company"; HCSB adds thw word "fellowship"; ESV and Diaglott adds the word "friends"; NASB adds the word "companions" etc]
Acts 4:32 which he possessed was his own [Message has "claim ownership of their own possessions" NRSV has "claimed private ownership of any possessions"] ANARTHROUS
Acts 13:36 his own generation
Acts 25:19 their own religion
Acts 28:30 in his own hired apartment
Romans 8:32 his own Son [Textus Receptus]
Romans 10:3 to establish their own [Nestle] [Textus Receptus, HCSB, Darby, NET, Weymouth adds the word "righteousness"; NLT adds "way of getting right with God"; Good News Bible adds the word "way"]
Romans 11:24 their own olive tree
Romans 14:4 his own lord
Romans 14:5 his own mind
1 Corinthians 3:8 his own reward
1 Corinthians 3:8 his own labor
1 Corinthians 4:12 our own hands
1 Corinthians 6:18 his own body
1 Corinthians 7:2 her own husband
1 Corinthians 7:4 her own body
1 Corinthians 7:4 his own body
1 Corinthians 7:7 his own gift
1 Corinthians 7:37 his own will
1 Corinthians 9:7 at his own wages
1 Corinthians 11:21 his own supper
1 Corinthians 14:35 their own husbands
1 Corinthians 15:23 his own order
1 Corinthians 15:38 his own body
Galatians 6:5 his own burden
Ephesians 5:22 to their own husbands
Ephesians 5:24 their own husbands
Colossians 3:18 their own husbands [Textus Receptus]
1 Thessalonians 2:14 your own countrymen
1 Thessalonians 2:15 their own prophets [Textus Receptus]
1 Thessalonians 4:11 your own business
1 Timothy 3:4 his own household
1 Timothy 3:5 his own household
1 Timothy 3:12 their own households
1 Timothy 4:2 their own conscience
1 Timothy 5:4 their own houshold
1 Timothy 5:8 his own people
1 Timothy 6:1 their own masters
2 Timothy 1:9 his own purpose
2 Timothy 4:3 their own lusts
Titus 2:5 their own husbands
Titus 2:9 their own masters ANARTHROUS
Hebrews 4:10 his own the God did [Lattimore, Simple English Bible, NET, CEV, New Life NT, NiRV, International English Bible adds the word "works"; The Power NT adds the word "labors."]
Hebrews 7:27 his own sins
Hebrews 9:12 his own blood
Hebrews 13:12 his own blood
James 1:14 his own lusts
1 Peter 3:1 your own husbands
1 Peter 3:5 their own husbands
2 Peter 2:16 his own transgression
2 Peter 2:22 his own vomit
2 Peter 3:3 their own lusts
2 Peter 3:16 their own destruction
2 Peter 3:17 your own stedfastness
Jude 6 their own habitation

"This absolute use of hO IDIOS is found in the Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that 'his Own' (hO IDIOS) was a title that early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to 'the Beloved' (hO AGAPHTOS); compare Ro 8:32, where Paul refers to God 'who did not spare TOU IDIOU hUIOU' in a context that clearly alludes to Gn 22:16, where the Septuagint has TOU AGAPHTOU hUIOU." A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament p. 426. This same page refers to Hort, who believed that "hUIOU [Son] may have dropped out after TOU IDIOU.

Acts 20:28 has also suffered at the hands of "orthodox" corruptors of Scripture (see The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman, pp. 87-88, which has many Bibles and manuscripts reading "Lord" instead of "God."

John 1:1

Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."
Recovery Version, Living Streams Ministry, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768,
"and was himself a divine person"
Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"
Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"
La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.”
John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god
Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine
Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."
Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."
Concordant Version (Knoch) "God was the Word"
C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god
New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"
International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]
Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"
The NET Bible, "and the Word was fully God."
Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"
Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"
Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885,
"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”
Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"
Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981
“In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God.
The Message was deity.”
CEV, "the Word was truly God."
Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London
"[A] Divine Person."
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S.  (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"
Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"
Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"
J. Harold Greenlee, "and the Word was Deity" (A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek)
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16).  "a God"
"At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order." 21st Century NT Free
"and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal
George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"
James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"
Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"
Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature
...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."
William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"
Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine
Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
Cotton Patch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One
Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"
Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"
Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."
Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"
Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"
Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"
Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"
Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"
Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"
Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"
Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"
Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]
William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933,
"And the Word was divine."
John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"
Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"
Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament,  London, Student Movement Christian Press1931
"and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'
Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript)
"In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."
Buzzard/Hunting
“In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the
heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already
existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the
Wisdom was God’s Wisdom” (Pro. 8:22-30)
Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1
“III.  [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that “The Word was God”. There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like”

So Why the Differences in these translations?
Let us look at the construction as it is in the Nestle-Aland Greek NT.
EN ARCH HN O LOGOS KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS

Let's look at the two different appearances of the word "God" in John 1:1. The first usage of 'theos' (which is spelled with the accusative case ending) is preceded by a definite article(TON QEON/The God). This gives this God "identity". The second usage is the predicate noun "QEOS" or "a god." It lacks the article. So here we see that the subject,  the LOGOS/WORD is with The God, but he belongs to a "class" of god or has the "quality" of a God. It is qualitative. As you can see I added the indefinite article "a" before the second word "god". This is perfectly acceptable as the greek doesn't have an indefinite article and so it is up to the translator to decide where the indefinite article should be. However, W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary claims that "to translate it literally, 'a god was the Word,' is entirely misleading." Vine does not deny that "a god" is a literal translation, only that we shouldn't translate it like that. But is he right? Trinitarians like Vine do not like the rendering "a god". Murray Harris in his book, Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus gives us a list where others were referred to as gods in early times as titles of respect:

Heroes were gods, like Chiron and Colonus(see Sophocles Trach. 714 & Oed. Col. 65).
Skilled politicians were gods, like Demetrius Poliorketes and Antigonos (see Athanaeus 6:63).
Founding fathers of philosophical schools like Diogenes, Peregrinus and Heraclitus were gods (Peregrinus was thought so by his Christian students).
Rulers such as Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), Julius Caeser, Augustus, Herod Agrippa I, Nero and Domitian were referred to as gods.
Patriarchs like Moses are referred to as god by Philo (Sacr. AC. 9).
Certain servants such as Marricus (see Tacitus, Hist. 2:51).
And humans as possessors of great intelligence(i.e. Marcus Aurelius/Epictetus Diss.2:8:12 and Plotinus). p.27,28
But Harris only accepts "the Word was a god" on grammatical grounds as Christians are monotheistic. Christians are, but this does not disallow "god" as a title of respect. Even the Bible makes reference to others who are termed "god" but are not YHWH or false gods.
Moses is a god(Ex. 4:16; 7:1)
Kings are gods(Ps. 45:6)
Angels/Judges are gods(Ps. 8:5; 82:1-6; 97:7; 138:1)

Here is how others have viewed the title "God":

"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The explanation which was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christoloy was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28),  not only angels,  but even men could be called 'gods' [cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7, 9; Ps. 82:6, 7; John 10:34, 35] without  according  them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2 Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine Institutes], 37."-Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, p. 140.

"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, be- cause they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20.

"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue."-Justin Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170.

"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4), chapter XXXVIII (38), § 4; ANF, Vol. I, p. 52

"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Heathen (or, The Greeks, or, The Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203.

"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the Father's will ... and meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint ourselves with the perennial, immortal bloom of gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Peadagogus), Book I, chapter XII (12); ANF, Vol. II, p. 234.

"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel-be not deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapter XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151.

"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p. 153.

"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and by the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237.

"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus, Incarnation Of The Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65,  reprinting of October, 1987.  "For He has become Man, that He might deify us in  Himself,  and  He has been  born  of a  woman,  and  begotten  of  a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may become henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter  wrote. (2 Peter 1:4)-Athanasius, Letters of Athanasius, (Lx. Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576.

Origen (185 CE - 251 CE) is called "one of the most learned teachers and prolific authors of the early church."  (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)  Though coming well after the apostolic period, it is interesting to peruse his Commentary on John, as found in volume 9 of
Menzies' "Ante-Nicene Fathers."

[Quote]
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1].  He does not write without care in this respect nor is he unfamiliar with the Greek tongue.  In some cases he uses the article, and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the article, not without it.

God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article).  And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth."

The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype.  But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father.
[Unquote]

For Origen, John 1:1c is the logical outcome of John 1:1b, i.e., the Word is "God" or a divine being *because* he was "with" The God in the beginning, "not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father."

What I found interesting was so early a recognition of the relevance of the difference between QEOS and hO QEOS in John 1:1.  As Origen explains it, the meaning would be similar to modern translators who render John 1:1 as "the Word was Divine" or "the Word was a divine being" or even -- yes -- "the Word was a god."

I just came across an interesting bit in Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture where a scribe altered John 1:1c in order to elevate the divine status of Jesus.

"I should observe that a similar addition of the article occurs in the 8th century Alexandrian manuscript L of John 1:1, so that the text now reads *O QEOS HN O LOGOS*-making it clear that the Word actually was God himself (not simply divine). I am somewhat reluctant to exclude this singular reading from consideration here, but am nonetheless under the distinct impresssion that it derives from the later Arian controversies. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that Origen already used the *absence* of the article in John 1:1 to demonstrate Christ's subordination to God (Jn. Com 2.2.17-18)." p. 179

I think Ehrman's comment is interesting, and the fact that John 1:1c, as it should read, is simply not enough to elevate Christ to almightihood even from a historical perspective.

To understand the translation "the Word was a god," let us look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, "One of you is a devil." ASV
Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities of a devil. The word "devil" here has no article in the greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the "a" to complete the thought.

So what kind of god is Jesus? John 1:18 says he is the "only-begotten God" or "only-born God" who represents the God that "no man hath seen"(NASB, NWT, Lattimore, Byington.
But why is the term WORD/LOGOS used here to refer to Jesus Christ?
First, most of the early Church Fathers considered Wisdom to be Christ.
Eldon J. Epp, in his book "WISDOM, TORAH, WORD: THE JOHANNINE PROLOGUE and the PURPOSE of the  FOURTH GOSPEL  singles out Wisdom hymns in Proverbs, Sirach 24:3-9, 23-32, Baruch 3:9-4:2 and Wisdom of Solomon 7:21-9:18 that he believes influenced the Prologue of John. There are considerable parallels.
In fact, Wisdom 9:1 refers to the God who "made all things by means of his word(logos). But then 9:2 uses SOPHIA(wisdom) as a parallel to LOGOS.

"I issued from the mouth of the Most High" Sirach 24:3 Hence: a Word
"He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease." Sirach 24:9
"All that was secret or manifest I learned." Wisdom 7:21
"But if the possession of wealth is to be desired in life, What is richer than wisdom, which operates everything?" And if understanding works, Who in all the world is a greater craftsman than she?" Wisdom 8:5-6
"God of my forefathers and merciful Lord, Who created all things by your word, and by your wisdom formed man
To rule over the creatures you had made." Wisdom 9:1,2
"And with you is wisdom, which knows your works, And was present when you made the world, And understands what is pleasing in your sight, And what is in accord with your commands." Wisdom 9:9
"She glorifies her high birth in living with God." Wisdom 8:3
"Give me the wisdom that sits by your throne." Wisdom 9:4
"The motif of Wisdom the woman subsequently played a notable part in Jewish and Christian thought. She appears, for example, in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Sirach, in Baruch 3:9-4:4, and in the non-biblical texts from Qumram, and her words are echoed in the New Testament (e.g. Matt. 11:28). Perhaps most resonant of all was Wisdom's speech in Proverbs 8:22-31, stressing her presence at the beginning of creation. Sirach equates Wisdom with the creative word of God (24:3) and with Torah (24:23). Readers of the jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (first century C.E.) have found it difficult to disentangle the properties of God's word (LOGOS) from Wisdom (SOPHIA) of God (1 Cor 1:24). The mini-creation story at John 1:1-3 consciously evokes Proverbs 8."
The Oxford Companion to the Bible edited by Bruce M. Metzger
"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which will give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ. Jesus is referred to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co 1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the world, Col 1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. Finally, John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his gospel throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. Hence, Christian tradition from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself." footnote New Jerusalem Bible at Prov 8
"She is God's associate in his works, and his agent in making all things (Prov 8:22-30; see also Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)." footnote at Wisdom 8:2-21 in the New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV

"While we do not say with certainty that this applies to a personal being, it does foreshadow the beautiful doctrine of the Word of God later developed in St. John`s gospel (Jn 1, 1-14)." footnote at Sirach 24, New American Bible

"Here that plurality of divine persons is foreshadowed which was afterward to be fully revealed when Wisdom in the Person of Jesus Christ became incarnate." footnote at Proverbs 8:22 New American Bible.

W. Gunther Plaut, in his work Book of Proverbs—A Commentary, says that these verses apply to Wisdom "personified only in a figurative way." This passage, however, cannot be speaking merely about divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract. Why not? Because the "Wisdom" that is here depicted was "created" or "produced" (Hebrew, qa·nah') as the beginning of Jehovah's way.
What is the best rendering here though. Some Bibles read "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his way. The Interpreters's Bible [p.830] says of Prov 8:22.

"The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements made in the following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf. also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus:
Wisdom was created before them all,
And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4)
The Lord himself created her (Ecclus 1:9
Then the Creator of all gave me his command;
And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT).

Interestingly, the New Jerusalem Bible at Proverbs 8:22 states, "The translation 'acquired me' or 'possessed me' (Aquila, Symm., Theod. ) was adopted by Jerome (Vulg), probably with an eye to the heretic Arius who maintained that the Word (=Wisdom) was a created being." So again we see a manipulation of the text to fit an errant theology. For an extensive list of Bible Translations that do not render the verb QANAH as possessed click here.

So how is it that Jesus stopped being referred to as Wisdom in many minds?

"Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all', as he who is greater also than the Son.  But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son.  In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff.  The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the pre-existent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation.  But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false.... A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone', and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not'.  When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it.  But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea." [e.a.]-pp. 155-8.  The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

The Scriptures show that Jehovah (Yahweh) God himself has always existed. (Ps. 90:2; 1 Tim. 1:17) Because Jehovah filled his only-begotten Son with wisdom, the Son became the very symbol of wisdom and he speaks of himself as Wisdom in Proverbs chapter 8. In Pr 8 verse 30 where Moffatt uses the expression "foster-child" to refer to the Son, Moffatt is giving a literal translation of the word ah·móhn, which is from the Hebrew verb ahmán, meaning "to nourish, nurse, be guardian to". In Isaiah 49:23 the participle of this verb, ah·méhn, is translated in the King James Version "nursing fathers", and "nourishers" in the margin. At Isaiah 60:4 the word is rendered "nursed".

John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ, wrote:
When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the prologue to St. John{John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word "god" at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English... The adoring exclation of St. Thomas "my Lord and my god" (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v[erse. 17) "Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as "our God", "my God", but probably never as "God" without qualification.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here