"Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is by prefacing the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47.

Daniel Wallace, speaking of Mark Noll, in his book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind talks about how

"American evangelicals have decided to chuck their brains for the sake of the party line, or for experience, or for emotionalism, etc. But the history of Christianity up through last century was of a different ilk. The Church felt that at least some of its number should be scholars--men and women who dedicated their minds to God, who cultivated the life of the mind. The fact that conspiracy theories about Bible translations are getting readily accepted in several circles indicts evangelicalism. To be blunt, this trend is symptomatic of the dumbing down of Christians in this country. Evangelicals are increasingly holding down the anti-intellectual fort, without engaging in serious debate with others."

"the very fact that you would have to ask me for such a list shows that 1) you have not thoroughly investigated this issue, and 2) you are therefore speaking out of order, making dogmatic claims about what scholars say about the passage prior to having checked into the history of this passage, as understood by NON-Trinitarians. At any rate, I will here give a partial list, as I do not have time to list the over 80 scholars that I have on file as endorsing the translation "a G-god."
1) "a god" - A. N. Jannaris, Ph.D, author of An Historical Greek Grammar and Lecturer on Post-Classical and other Greek dialects at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland (in ZNW 2 [1901], 24-25).
2) "a God" - 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).
3) "a God" - Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156).
4) "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).
5) "a God" - Herman Heinfetter, author of Rules for Ascertaining the Sense Conveyed in Ancient Greek Manuscripts, Objections to Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article, and An Enquiry Respecting the Punctuation of Ancient Greek (in A Literal Translation of the Gospel According to St. John on Definite Rules of Translation, and an English Version of the Same, 6th ed. [London: Evan Evans, 1864]).
6) "a God" - Robert Young, LL.D. (in his Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54).
7) "a God" - 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).
8) "a god" - William Loader, Ph.D. and New Testament Lecturer for the Perth Theological Hall, Australia, teacher at Murdoch University as a member of the Perth College of Divinity, and author of several books and journal articles (in The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues [Peter Lang 1992], 155). Loader refers to "a god" as the "most natural reading of the text."
Other translations throughout the past two centuries could be cited, but I am through doing the work you should have done on your own, prior to making the claims you make about how scholars understand this verse. Or are you only interested in what Trinitarian scholars have to say?"

This witchhunt reminds me of James White (who incidentally had no problem  finding the Jehovah's Witnesses German quotes on John 1:1c in the KIT ) at http://aomin.org/GERM_JWS.html and found that they belonged to the following groups:
Baptist, Liberal, or Unitarian. He goes on to say.

"Jehovah's Witnesses are experts at quoting individuals that come from completely different perspectives and world-views in such as way as to make it sound as if they (the person being quoted) support or lend credence to the Watchtower's teachings. This is clearly seen here. None of these scholars are classically Arian in their theology." For my rebuttal, go to http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/germans.htm

"Interdenominational vs. denominational. Generally, a translation committee representing several denominations rather than a single church or denomination will tend to have less theological biases. High: all except the NAB and NJB."

"Nearly every public and university library in the country has copies of the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, NASB, and so forth.
The scholars that we can cite in support of our exegesis of such biblical texts as John 1:1 and 8:58 include most of the renowned scholars specializing in that portion of the Bible, in this case, scholars who have specialized in the study of John’s writings.  No introduction is needed to names such as C. K. Barrett, F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Leon Morris, and James Montgomery Boice to those at all familiar with contemporary New Testament studies. I’m embarrassed for you when you think a list with names like Lant Carpenter, Robert Harvey, J. L. Tomanek, and Charles A. L. Totten in any way enhances the credibility of your position." Click here for full email.

"does anyone besides me see the common denominator of all of these scholars? They are all members of religious schools attached to specific denominations of Christianity. I have no reason to question the integrity of any of these gentlemen. On the contrary, I am sure they have perfect integrity in their primary commitment, namely their religious beliefs. Isn't it fair to presume that their affiliations already testify to their theological commitments? I would imagine that these gentlemen read the bible in line with those commitments, and I would not fault them for that; that is their prerogative, and I am sure they are supported in this by their institutions. Anyone who wants the Presbyterian or Catholic or Evangelical reading of the bible, I would urge you to consult with such experts. If, however, you want an objective assessment of bible translation, don't ask theologians, ask secular bible scholars at public universities. Our jobs are not on the line if we seem to contradict church dogma, and we are not in the business of apologetics or polemics. We are historians and linguists trying to find out what was said and what was meant in ancient texts. I wouldn't expect you to turn to us for spiritual guidance. But if you want to know what the original Greek of the NT can and cannot mean, we have the training and self-discipline to provide it without special pleading. That's no proud boast; that's a comment on the kind of education we value in a nation committed to the separation of church and state (for the protection of both), and on a profession which will let no unexamined claim stand unchallenged....
None of the major modern translations have been accomplished by groups of linguists working with the same methods employed in the translation of Homer or Plato. Instead, every translation committee has consisted of denominationally-affiliated bible scholars, most of whom had theological commitments which, when push came to shove, superseded a strictly linguistic approach. The kinds of considerations that are made by these committees concerning the meaning and proper translation of a verse simply do not occur in secular translation work. There is always a concern for the theological implications of the words. The Lockman foundation and the NIV committee openly avowed their primarily theological concerns in their translation work. The RSV/NRSV editors have gone so far as to modify translations to please specific denominational groups. The RSV/NRSV committee has, over the years, included a handful of "non-trinitarian" scholars, but this was simply part of the RSV editors' goal to make the RSV THE Bible of the English speaking world, and the tiny minority of dissenting voices within the committee could have little impact on the finished product."

"People who adhere to 'Sola Scriptura' ['we follow the Bible only'] (as they believe) often adhere in fact to a traditional school of interpretation of 'Sola Scriptura.' Evangelical Protestants can be as much slaves of tradition as Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox Christians; only they don't realize it is tradition."
F.F. Bruce, in correspondence, June 13, 1981, as quoted in *Our Fathers Who Aren't In Heaven* by Anthony Buzzard, p. 33

Bowman adds,

"The bottom line is this: If we limit ourselves to known, bona fide scholars whose credentials we can check and prove to be academically respectable and whose exegesis of the texts in question supports our position, we will have a very long list of scholars indeed, from a wide variety of religious perspectives. We don’t need translations, commentaries, or other works by unknown individuals to show that our position is scholastically tenable. On the other hand, in many cases, you do. It’s just that simple." Click here for full email.

"The "broad spectrum" (of scholars) you refer to is in fact very safely in the mainstream of modern Christianity. Now I think it safe to say that you assume modern mainstream Christianity to be correct and "true" Christianity, and a tiny minority like the JWs to be in error. But imagine if the situation were reversed. Imagine that your "true" Christianity was the minority, and the huge majority to have followed a wrong turn somewhere down the road to "error." This is just a hypothetical situation. In such a situation, any claim based on numbers, on majority rule, would have no meaning for you. It's pretty nice to speak with the confidence that you are in the majority isn't it? But has it ever occurred to you that in attacking the JWs and insisting that they give up their "different" beliefs and conform to your "true" beliefs and "correct" translations that you are pressuring them to do precisely what you would never do: yield in your faith, your truth, to the pressure of the outside world? I have often been struck by this irony."

Let us though look at Bowman's list of Bibles that we should consult, as they are readily available in any University Library: KJV, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, NASB
All these Bibles have one thing in common, they are Protestant Bibles, and they have all removed the Divine Name (YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah), thereby blurring the distinction between Father (Isaiah 64:8) and Son (John 3:16). Only the KJV has "Jehovah" a scant 4 times out of the textually required 6828 times. Everyone agrees that Colwell was a better textual critic than he was a grammarian. When he created an apparatus on determining the best New Testament, his results were quite surprising. The KJV was on the bottom of the list. He says,

"No scholar today employs this text for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtedly the most inaccurate English New Testament in common use today...The King James stands at the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (Mk 16:9-20; Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8)." pp. 99, 100

"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).

"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- Encyclopedia Americana (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

"The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to that we have in John 1:1, KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS, and the word was deity.  The article points out the subject in these examples.  Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article was also used with QEOS.  As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in QEOS." pp. 148, 149

Let us look at another grammar, the ever popular Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace.
On page 41, explaining the semantics and exegetical significance of the subject -  predicate nominative construction (in John 1:1c, the LOGOS (the Word) is the subject, as it has the article, and QEOS (God) is the predicate nominative, which, according to Wallace, means that it is "approximately the same as the subject, and is joined to it by an equative verb." [Emphasis his] He also points out that "the predicate nominative describes the class to which the subject belongs."
So far, so good, I agree. The Word belongs to a class called "God." Just like the place was not the only market (see above), the word was not the only god. There are others also.
But notice the jab that he takes (and this is not the only one) at the Witnesses.
Wallace says,

"The assumption that the grammatical equative verb bears the same force as the mathematical equal sign is one of the fundamental flaws in the thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the deity of Christ. On John 1:1, c.f. their booklet, Should You Believe in the Trinity? (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), where it is argued that since John 1:1b states that "the Word was with God," John 1:1c cannot mean "The Word was God"; "Someone who is 'with' another person cannot be the same as that other person" (27). This argument seems to assume that all S-PN constructions are of the convertible type."

Moving on to Page 267, Wallace again, erroneously goes on the attack against the NWT by using a quote from Countess. He says, "The grammatical argument here that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous" and from there goes on to quote Countess, who also assume this. This is simply not true. Note the appendix in the NWT 1984 Ed., where they said that the translations "a god" do so

"because the Greek word (the·os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os'. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression, that is, the·os' preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os'. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering."

Wallace also makes the following misleading statement on p. 269:

"The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way  he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father." [Emphasis his] {Bowman and Hawkins insisted on the same thing.}

Let us now move on to David Alan Black's "It's Still Greek to Me-An Easy to Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek [Second Printing, 1999]," he employs Colwell's Rule (which is now considered useless in regards to John 1:1) to pull for a definite classification of the predicate nominative. Why? Because to him, "the other persons of the Trinity are implied in QEOS." p. 79
Again, it is 4th century theology written back into John 1:1.
Majority Text advocate, Wilbur Pickering, in his translation of the New Testament, has this footnote at John 1:1:

"The New World Translation (of the JW's) renders "a god". They defend their choice because the noun 'God' occurs without the definite article [again, not completely true, see above...but do you see how this lie perpetuates?], and the absence of the article in Greek has the effect of the indefinite article in English - hence 'a god'. However, another frequent use of the absence of the definite article (in Greek) is to emphasize the quality inherent in the noun - in this case 'God'. Grammatically, the construction is ambiguous, so those who wish to deny the deity of Christ will naturally translate 'a god'. Since John will make himself perfectly clear that Christ is very God, we take that it is here emphasizing that inherent quality."

"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. "

Moving along, Murray J. Harris's "Jesus as God" makes the following comment,

"from the point of view of grammar alone, QEOS HN hO LOGOS could be rendered  'the Word was a god,' just as, for example, if only grammatical considerations were being taken into account, UMEIS EK TOU PATROS TOU DIABOLOU ESTE (John 8:44) could mean 'You belong to the father of the devil.'"

The bashing from those with influence does not end here. The Nelson NKJV Study Bible furthers the error, by again, attacking Jehovah's Witnesses as "cultists" right in its footnote.
The following is posted online by Paul S. Dixon at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-08/0168.html

"This morning I purchased the new Nelson Study Bible. This is what I found on p. 1756 regarding the translation of Jn 1:1c:
'The best understanding of the translation, however, as recognized by Greek scholars, is that since theos is a predicate and precedes the noun logos and a verb, it is natural for it to occur here without the article.'
Zounds! Colwell's error revisited. This statement clearly reflects the erroneous thinking whereby the converse of Colwell's rule is affirmed. Only if one assumes that QEOS is definite here can one appeal to Colwell's rule. But, then that would be begging the question. The question is, what is the significance of the anarthrous predicate construction here? It is qualitative, both because of the immediate context where QEOS is set in contrast to the qualitative SARZ in a similar construction in v. 14, and because of the normal significance of the construction in John. Furthermore, if QEOS in 1:1c were definite, then this definiteness would point to the preceding TON QEON identifying the LOGOS with God the Father. Would this not be Sabellianism and a denial of the trinity?

"Methodologically, however, the last sentence bothers me: it seems to imply that we should judge the meaning and intent of the Greek text in terms of what later becomes a recognized heresy and in terms of what is later declared to be right theology. I would think that one ought to determine first what the Greek text CAN mean, and only then go on to make a judgment about whether that accords with this or that theological position. That is to say, I would think that right theology derives from a right reading of the text, not a right reading of the text from right theology."

Bowman also made the assumption on the Radio, that if John 1:1c was rendered qualitatively (for instance, "the Word was divine") then this is trinitarian, as the qualitative rendering is what trinitarians are arguing for. Or as Bowman had written:

"Inasmuch as this may be a fair statement, at least from one perspective, these middle-ground renderings cannot be viewed as providing legitimacy for the “a god” rendering.  Think of it this way.  Let’s say you’re right and
these are “middle ground” renditions.  We may say, then, that “God” is the “right-wing” rendering and “a god” is the left-wing rendering.  I assume you would not agree that the middle-ground rendering “divine” is support for the right-wing rendering “God.”  Right?  Well, by the same reasoning, the rendering “divine” cannot be support for the left-wing rendering “a god.” "If “divine” means “a spiritual being of some exalted status,” then yes, “of
course” Jesus can be described as “divine” within a Jehovah’s Witness doctrinal framework.  However, if “divine” means “having the same essence and nature as God,” then no, Jesus cannot be described as “God” consistently
with Jehovah’s Witness theology.  So, to answer your question, Jesus could be “a god” but not be “divine” if “a god” meant that he were a being of godlike characteristics but “divine” meant a being of the same nature and
essence as God."

"However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus 'divine' could be misleading in a modern translation."

When we translate the Bible, we must NOT import into it a later Nicean or Cappadocian view of God, but we must translate as 1st Century Christians with strong Jewish roots.

Robert Bowman's inability to deal with Scriptures as translated by other scholars is evident when you examine some of the statements made by him in the past. In the CRI Journal-CRJ0049A, Bowman writes of the NWT:

"There are nine texts where Jesus is definitely called God (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20; possible also Acts 20:28). Of these, four are translated so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb 1:8; 1 Pet. 1:1). Two are rendered so that he is 'a god' or 'god' (John 1:1, 18)."

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

So again, Christ is NOT "definitely God" at Romans 9:5.

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

Again, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at Titus 2:13.
For more info click here, and here.
(Let me know if the Fuller library fails to find any of these!)

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 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."

"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

John 1:1
See Stafford's comments above.
As to capitalization of the word "God" KKLA radio has made the following accusation and used it against Jehovah's Witnesses on another one of their programs, listed online besides the above program. It was mentioned that the NWT does not capitalize some instances of theos/God, though the ancient manuscripts used all capitals.
Now, there are ancient manuscripts called Uncials, and they wrote in only capitals. For instance, in uncial script, Satan is called, "O QEOS TOU AIWNOS/THE GOD OF THE AGE." Yet, most Bibles, like the NASB, HCSB, Smith&Goodspeed will not capitalize theos here, even though it is articular, and in all capitals. Uncial manuscripts capitalized EVERYTHING, every word and every letter. It was not a doctrinal statement, and should never be used for a defense in such a way. To do this would be careless.#

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"

Bowman has a knack for picking the most ambiguous texts as "proof" of his theology. But, I guess, you must, if that is all you have. This is the Scripture where Ron Rhodes says in his 'Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses'  the following regarding the NWT's rendering of the verse at Acts 20:28, "The New World Translation rendering of this verse GOES AGAINST ALL LEGITIMATE TRANSLATIONS OF SCRIPTURE" (p. 86).
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.

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." The same could be said for John 1:18
I will make a prediction. Bowman will reject all the above, and will dwell on the weaker points and weaker translators. But the evidence is hard to ignore, and the facts are, that many in the lists above were/are Trinitarians and excellent grammarians. Perhaps they suffered some form of dementia, or it was overlooked by the committee. Of course I am being facetious, but this is the view I get when Walter Martin (Kingdom of the Cults) merely brushes off the New English Bible's rendering of "a god" at John 10:34 as a simple "mistranslation." There MUST have been something wrong, right?. Adherents of Martin, Rhodes and Bowman are dumbfounded when presented with the evidence that they failed to provide. Why this silence? We can discuss the Bible together, but JW's have an unfair advantage as we can go beyond what our pastors tell us.

Case in point, consider Bowman's misuse of mss evidence:

"JWs argue that "Jehovah" was used in the original LXX and NT manuscripts, and that the versions which used kurios were produced after the first century by apostate scribes. They base this claim on some pre-NT manuscripts of the LXX containing the divine name which have been discovered in this century.
It is unnecessary here to discuss all the pros and cons of this theory. Several recent studies have been done which show that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the divine name was used in the original LXX, though everyone admits that some (not many) copies of the LXX did use it." http://www.mvcf.com/bible/religion_beliefs/cache/cri/crj0031a.html

1) 4Q LXX Lev (b)
2) LXX P.Fouad Inv. 266
3) LXX VTS 10b
4) LXX VTS 10a
5) LXX IBJ 12
6) LXX P. Oxy. VII 1007

and there are 4 others Aquila's (2), Symmachus, and Ambrosian (of a later date).
"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)

The LXX you use probably comes from the Alexandrian mss dated hundreds of years after Christ.
In fact, you will be hard-pressed to find any manuscript before the 4th century that used the word kyrios or theos. You see, they were all abbreviated.
For more see click here and go to http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/ntstudies/tetragram.htm and http://www.divinename.net/

Bowman: "Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with God is secure "owing to the _spirit_ which he gave us" (3:24). The next sentence (4:1) in the NWT reads, "Beloved ones, believe not every _inspired expression,_ but test the _inspired expressions_ to see whether they originate with God..."
(4:1a; emphases added). One would never suspect from this rendering that "inspired expression" translates the same Greek word (_pneuma_) as was translated "spirit" in 3:24 (see also 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence in us gives us assurance of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God, but test them by the teachings which their prophets espouse, "because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1b). The NWT obscures this point of God's Word in order to avoid its implication that His "Spirit" is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic "spirits" are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as JWs recognize).
The same doctrinal bias is seen in 1 Timothy 4:1 where the NWT reads, "However, the _inspired utterance_ says...." A straightforward "the spirit says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "spirit.""

"The term 'spirits' in the phrase might more appropriately be understood as 'prophetic utterances' or 'revelations of the Spirit,' on analogy with the use of the term 'spirit' (PNEUMA) in 2 Thess 2:2, 1 John 4:1; and particularly 1 Cor 14:12" (Prophecy in Early Christianity, page 220).

pneu=ma, atos, to/, (pne/w) blast, wind, first in Anaximen.2, o(/lon to\n ko/smon p. kai\ a)h\r perie/xei: freq. in Trag., etc., a)ne/mwn pneu/mata pa/ntwn Aesch. PB 1086 (anap.), cf. au=Aesch. PB 1047 (anap.); qala/ssas . . pneu/mati la/brw| IDEM=Aesch. Pers. 110(lyr.); pneuma/twn e)pombri/a| IDEM=A.Fr.300.3; te/ws de\ kou/fois pneu/masin bo/skou Soph. Aj. 558; pneu/masin qalassi/ois e)cwsqe/ntes Eur. Cycl. 278 (but pnoh/ is commoner in Poets; Hom. uses pnoih/); pneu/mata a)ne/mwn Hdt. 7.16.a/; to\ p. kath/|ei Thuc. 2.84; kata\ pru/mnan i(/statai to\ p. IBID=au=Thuc. 2.97=lr; to\ p. lei=on kai\ kaqesthko\s labei=n Aristoph. Frogs 1003; to\ p. e)/latton gi/gnetai IDEM=Aristoph. Kn. 441; ei) foro\n p. ei)/h Xen. Hell. 6.2.27; kata\ pneu=ma sth=nai tou= a)/rrenos to leeward of him, Arist.HA560b14; but kata\ p. prosio/ntes down wind, IBID=au=Arist. HA 535a19; pneu/matos a)nei/lhsis, e)kpu/rwsis, Epicur. Ep.2pp.44,45 U.; as an element, air, Corp.Herm.1.9, au=Corp.Herm. 1.16=lr; to\ p. to\ peri\ th\n yuxh/n Plot.2.2.2, cf. Porph.Sent.29.

2. metaph., qalerwte/rw| p. with more genial breeze or influence, Aesch. Seven 708(lyr.); lu/sshs p. ma/rgw| IDEM=Aesch. PB 884(anap.); ai)doi/w| p. xw/ras with air or spirit of respect on the part of the country, IDEM=Aesch. Supp. 29(anap.); p. tau)to\n ou)/pot' . . e)n a)ndra/sin fi/lois be/bhken the wind is constantly changing even among friends, Soph. OC 612; p. sumfora=s Eur. IT 1317; o(/tan qeou= soi p. metabalo\n tu/xh| IDEM=Eur. Her. 216.

II. breathed air, breath, sa/lpigc brotei/ou pneu/matos plhroume/nh Aesch. Eum. 568; au)lw=n, lwtou= p., Eur. Ba. 128(lyr.), ti=Eur. Phoen. 787 (lyr., pl.); p. a)pe/rrhcen bi/ou the breath of life, Aesch. Pers. 507; p. a)pw/lesen IDEM=Aesch. Seven 984 (lyr.); p. a)/qroison collect breath, Eur. Phoen. 851; p. a)fei=nai, a)nei=nai, meqei=nai, to give up the ghost, IDEM=Eur. Hec. 571, ti=Eur. Orest. 277, ti=Eur. Tro. 785 (anap.); p. deimai/nwn lipei=n IDEM=Eur. Supp. 554; p. . . dusw=des h)fi/ei Thuc. 2.49; pneu/matos diarroai/ the wind-pipe, Eur. Hec. 567; ta\s tou= p. dieco/dous a)pofra/tton Plat. Tim. 91c (v. pneu/mwn ); pneu/matos r(w/mh Plu.2.804b: prov., a)/nqrwpo/s e)sti p. kai\ skia\ mo/non S.Fr.13.

2. breathing, respiration, freq. in Hp., p. pukno/n, a)raio/n, e)ktei=non, katepei=gon, ti=Hp. Epid.2.3.7; p. pukno/teron ti=Hp. Acut.16; p. prosko/pton checked, difficult breathing, Aph.au=Hp. Acut. =lr; p. a)/shmon indistinct, feeble breathing, Epid.au=Hp. Acut. 6.7.8; p. bhxw=des ti=Hp. Coac.622; p. mete/wron shallow breathing, Epid.au=Hp. Coac. =lr; to\ p. e)/xein a)/nw to be out of breath, Men.23, cf. Sosicr.1; to\ p. a)nh/negkan recovered their breath, Hp.Prorrh.2.12 (so without to\ p. ti=Hp. Aph.2.43); but a)nafe/rousin . . klai/onta/ te kai\ e)s ta\s r(i=nas a)ne/lkonta to\ p. they sob . . , IDEM=Hp.Hebd.51.

b. pl., of the air imagined as filling the veins, pneuma/twn a)polh/yies a)na\ fle/bas IDEM=Hp.Acut.(Sp.)au=Hp. Hebd. 7,al.

3. flatulence, in pl., Eub.107.9, Arist.Pr. 948b25, Dsc.2.112, D.L.6.94.

4. breath of life, p. zwh=s LXXGe.6.17, au=LXX Ge. 7.15, cf. Plut. Per. 13,etc.; p. e)/xein retain life, Plb.31.10.4; living being, e)gw\ *ni/nos pa/lai pot' e)geno/mhn p. Phoen.1.16; ou) p. pa/nta bro/teia soi\ (sc. *plou/twni) ne/metai; IG14.769 (Naples).

5. that which is breathed forth or exhaled, odour, w)= qei=on o)dmh=s p. Eur. Hipp. 1391; p. baru\ a)fiei=sa, of a tree, Plu.2.647b.

6. Gramm., breathing with which a vowel is pronounced, IBID=au=Plu. 1009e (pl.), A.D.Adv.147.18; p. dasu/, yilo/n, IDEM=A.D.Pron. 78.6, ti=A.D. Adv.148.9.

III. divine inspiration, a)/gria . . pneu/mata qeufori/hs AP6.220.4 (Diosc.); ei) mh/ ti qei=on . . e)nh=n p. th=| yuxh=| Pl.Ax.370c; to\ i(ero\n kai\ daimo/nion e)n mou/sais p. Plu.2.605a; kaqaro\n di/kaion . . p. qeou= swth=ros BMus.Inscr.1062(Cyrene, ii A. D.).

IV. the spirit of God, p. qeou= LXXGe.1.2, etc.: freq. in NT, to\ p. to\ a(/gion Ev.Marc.3.29,al.

2. spirit of man, ei)/t' e)sti\ tou=to p. qei=on ei)/te nou=s Men.482.3: in NT, opp. yuxh/, 1 Ep.Thess.5.23, cf. Ep.Rom.8.2; tw=| p., opp. tw=| sw/mati, 1 Ep.Cor.5.3; also, opp. gra/mma, Ep.Rom.2.29.

V. spiritual or immaterial being, angel, Ep.Hebr.1.14, Apoc.1.4; ta\ a)/xranta p., ta\ kaka\ p., Iamb.Myst.3.31; p. ponhro/n, yeude/s, LXX Jd.9.23, 3 Ki.au=LXX Jd. 22.21, cf. Act.Ap.19.12, au=Act.Ap. 19.15=lr, Apoc.16.14, Porph.ap.Eus.PE4.23, etc.; a)la/lou kai\ kakou= p. ou)=sa plh/rhs (sc. h( *puqi/a) Plu.2.438b.

VI. Rhet., sentence declaimed in one breath, Hermog.Inv.3.10,au=Hermog. Inv. 4.4,al.

"mystically" NASB Rev. 11:8
"Spiritually" KJV Rev. 11:8
"symbolic" NAB Rev. 11:8
"prophetically" NRSV Rev. 11:8

In John 3:8 PNUEMA is mentioned twice in the same scripture. The first time it is translated "wind", the second time "spirit".

"the spirit of his mouth" KJV, NWT 2 Thess 2:8
"the breath of his mouth" NASB

Moving along:

Bowman: "prepositions do have recognizable functions and meanings and cannot be translated in whatever manner one chooses.
In violation of this, the NWT translates the simple preposition "in" (Greek, _en_) with unnecessary variations which often obscure or alter the meaning of the passage. This is illustrated in 1 John 5:20 where the NWT reads in part, "And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ." Reading this translation, one would never suspect that _in union with_ and _by means of_ translate the same simple Greek preposition. There is no sound reason for this variation.

"He[the translator] thinks that as long as he keeps the "same" words he cannot be too far wrong with the meaning. Instead, what he has done is not translation at all- he has put a new, and therefore wrong message in the bible. Whenever this happens, the problem has become very serious indeed." Norman Mundhenk, What Translation are you Using, The Bible Translator, Oct 1974, pp 419,420

"ingrafted as it were in Christ, in fellowship and union with Christ, with the Lord...Since such union with Christ is the basis on which actions and virtues rest, the expression is equivalent in meaning to by virtue of special fellowship or union with Christ."

Bowman: In Colossians 1:16-20 the word "other" is added four times in the NWT to make it appear that Christ is part of creation. Paul is thus made to say that "all [other] things" were created in and for Christ, as if Christ were one of the created things. It is, of course, legitimate for translators to add the word "other" where this does not change the meaning but simply makes for smoother English (e.g., Luke 11:41-42; 13:2,4). In Colossians 1:16-20, however, adding "other" substantially changes the meaning.

#Careless also was the radio station's explanation of Colossians 1:15 and 16. There was no explanation at all of the partitive genitive (for more click here and here, and here) but with the reading of Colossians 1:16, as it is in the NASB, "BY Him all things were created" leading the listener to conclude the Jesus is the active creator of all things. The problem is that all the verbs pertaining to Christ as creating are passive, not active. (For more click here) This passivity is just what we would expect from someone who was a Master Worker, besides Jehovah helping him create, as the Bible says at Proverbs 8:22-30.
This use of language was never explained at all to the listening audience, and in the midst of this rhetoric they have lost the full force of what the Apostle was trying to convey.
"He is a likeness of the unseen God, born before any creature, for it was through him that everything was created." Smith and Goodspeed's An American Translation
"Of all creation, he was first to be produced, in fact it was he that formed all other things...all came into existance as a result of him and by means of him." 21st Century NT

The bottom line is this, the NWT, like all Bibles, is not a perfect translation, though it is a very good one. It has been praised by those who do not have a religious affiliation to promote. It has been dumped on, of course, by Protestant/Evangelicals, not realizing that they are promoting a weakness of God as it pertains to divine providence in the process.

If you feel comfortable using the NASB and KJV, then use it. But don't do so at the cost of undermining God's Word in another translation.

"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate to learn the Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible Translations and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages, we suggest either a very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, Duthie