Maybe I should go back and answer your quotes instead of just dismissing them.
When I read the 19 examples you gave it strikes me that each one is showing the predicate to not be a particular person, but as possessing the qualities of the group identified. Thus "a Jew" means "Jewish", "a Smaritan" meant "Samaritanish"
"a sinner" means "one who sins (has the qualities of the group sinners). etc They would be translated as they have been into English because it is the best way to do it to show the Greek meaning------they they possessed the qualities of that group.
To translate "theos" either as "a god" or as "God" would carry theological implications and could be seen as biased. This is why I think that "divine"(or equivalent) is a better alternative as in English it does not mean the the Logos is "the God" and it does not mean that the Logos is another god. It seems that the NWT is said by the WT to have been translated with the quality meaning of "theos" in mind as so translated as "a god". This however, along with the translation of "God" does not bring out the quality meaning of "theos" in English and so both are just theologically biased.
If either is going to be used at all it has to be the context which determines this.
In the case of John 1 the context shows that the Logos was not created or did not come into existence. This means that the Logos possesses the qualities of "the God" including never having been created. This means the Logos is God as much as "The God" is God.
So why is the Logos not called "the God"? Because there is more than one person/consciousness who possesses the qualities of "the God" but these persons/consciousnesses are in "the God" and gain their existence in and from "the God". They are distinct but are one with and in "the God".
The Jews knew what Jesus meant when He said He is in the Father (and the Father is in Him) and when He said that He and the Father are one. These were blasphemous statements in the Jewish theology of God and Jesus does not deny them because the Jewish theology of God, their understanding of the Torah was and is wrong--------------imo.
From the site below I will add a quote from Jason BeDuhn
Who is the Word in John 1:1
<<<ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1 1881 (WHNU)
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
TRUTH IN TRANSLATION
This is an extract from the above book by Jason David BeDuhn, professor of religious studies at Nothern Arizona University
Under chapter eleven-headed:
"And the Word was..what?"
Quote: "Grammatically, John1:1c is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar ordinary structures of the Greek expression. A lexical (interlinear) translation of the controversial clause would read: "and a god was the Word." A minimal literal (formal equivalence) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: "And the Word was a god." The preponderance of the evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment supports this translation, of which "the Word was divine." would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same meaning. Both of these renderings are superior to the traditional translation which goes against these three key factors that guide accurate translation.
Understanding John 1:1c accurately.
John Harner, in his article, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," presents a much more careful, systematic analysis of the same type of sentences studied by Colwell. Harner does not predetermine which predicate nouns are definite. Instead, he investigates all predicate nouns that do not have the definite article and compares those that appear before the verb with those that appear after the verb. based on his investigation, he concludes that, "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important than the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as a definite." (Harner 1973 page 75).
In other words, Greek has a particular way of expressing the nature or character of something that employs predicate nouns before the verb and without the article, just as in John 1:1. The nature or character of ho logos ("the Word") is theos ("divine") The professor examines some sentences structured like John 1:1c and the meaning they convey.
Quote: " The setting is Pilate's exchange with Jesus. In John 18:35, Pilate asks,"Am I a Jew "( ego Uoudaios eimi? )" The predicate noun here appears before the verb and without the article as it does in John 1:1, and clearly is indefinite in meaning, "a Jew," Two verses later, he asks Jesus. "Are you a king?"(basileus ei su?). Here is the exact syntax as John 1:1--the predicate noun precedes the verb, the subject follows it, and the predicate noun lacks the definite article. Yet Pilate is asking if Jesus is "a king," not " the king." Jesus' answer in the same verse uses the same basic construction: "You say that I am a king (su legeis hoti basileus eimi)......."
As the story continues, the opponents of Jesus provide, through John's report, a basic lesson in the distinction between definite and indefinite constructions of Greek. Seeing the placard placed over the crucified Jesus, they tell Pilate: "Do not write"The king of the Jews,' but that this one said, "I am a king of the Jews'" (John 19:21). They try to distance Jesus from the royal title by two moves; first by making it clear that it is merely a claim, and second by changing the title itself from "the king" (basileus without the article, before the be-verb."
Harner argues for an English speaking audience, that if "the" is used with the predicate nouns, the qualitative sense will be lost. The use of "a" conveys that the qualitative sense.
For example, in John 4:19 we must translate "You are a prophet,"not "You are the prophet." In John 8:48 it is "You are a Samaritan." not "you are the Samaritan." In John 12:6 it must be "He was a thief," not "he was the thief."In John 9:24 "This man is a sinner" not "this man is the sinner". Notice that this is not a case of how we say things in English dictating the Greek, but a matter of choosing the English that best communicates what the Greek means.
Conclusion.
If this verse were interpreted to mean Jesus was himself God Almighty, it would contradict the preceding statement, “the Word was with God.” Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. Many Bible translations thus draw a distinction, making clear that the Word was not God, Three great translators of the Greek scriptures, translate John 1:1c, into English "the Word was divine" (James Moffat, Edgar J Goodspeed, and Westcott )
Over fifty Bible verses in John's writings have a construction similar to that of John 1:1c. For example, when referring to Herod Agrippa I, the crowds shouted: ‘It is a god speaking.’ And when Paul survived a bite by a poisonous snake, the people said: “He is a god.” (Acts 12:22; 28:3-6) It is in harmony with both Greek grammar and Bible teaching to speak of the Word as, not God, but “a god.”—John 1:1c.
Just a few verses down in the same chapter (Vs 14 ) John tells us the "Word" became "flesh", not God and Vs 18 reads (KJV ):"18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Has any human seen Jesus Christ, the Son? Of course! So, then, was John saying that Jesus was God? Obviously not. Towards the end of his Gospel,
John summarized matters, saying:
" But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,[ not God, but] the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31 KJV,[ not God, but] words in bracket entered in verse by me.>>>
