Mark: "According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, theotes (the nominative form, from which theotetos is derived) means "divinity, divine nature.1 Being truly "divinity," or "divine nature," does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share "humanity" or "human nature" makes them coequal or all the same age."
After checking a few more lexicons and Bible's we learned that "theotes" is defined similarly to the Liddell and Scott Lexicon, but we also learn that most scholarly Lexicon's go one step further and include the definitions deity, Godhead, and divine being. In fact Biblical scholar Joseph H. Thayer (not a Christian), defined theotes in
his Lexicon the following way:

    "Theotes...(deitas, Tertullian, Augustine) deity i.e. the state of being God,
    Godhead: Col 2:9"7

Notice in Thayer's Lexicon that Thayer has added in parenthesis two ancient Biblical scholars who agree with him, he list's: Tertullian and Augustine. Biblical scholar Grimm who edited Thayer's third edition of his lexicon in 1888 added in brackets his own comments, Grimm writes:

    "[Syn...theotes deity differs from theiotes divinity, as essence differs from
    quality or attribute. Trent, Lightfoot, Meyer, Fritzsche]"

In examining Thayer's Lexicon, we discover that there are eight Biblical scholars listed who hold that "theotes" means "deity," and five scholars who say there is a difference in meaning between "theotes" in Colossians 2:9 and "theiotes" of Romans 1:20. It seems that there is some confusion here, this has lead to some mistranslation of
Bible's and ultimately in the case of the Jehovah Witness the misapprehension of the person of Christ.

Now let us examine Thayer:
qeovth"...deity i.e. he state of being God, Godhead...Col. ii. 9...[SYN[ONYM]., qevth", qeiovth" [theiotes, thay.AH.tace] qeovt[h"]. deity differs from qeiovt[h""] divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute; c[on]f[er]. Trench [Synonyms of the New Testament, Ninth edition, improved, London, 1880.] § ii; Bp. Lightf[oo]t. or [Heinrich August Wilhelm] Mey[er]. on Col 1.c….] —'Thayer' lexicon, p. 288.

Despite the ad hominem attack on Thayer, that what is called 'Thayer's Lexicon', is mostly the work of Lutherans Wilke and Grimm in Greek and Latin, which were translated into English by Joseph Henry Thayer, who was a Congregationalist and NOT an Unitarian see: George Huntston Williams, The Harvard Divinity School, Boston, The Beacon Press, 1954, p. 147 and The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. 26, p. 490.)
Thayer's additions in the lexicon are set off in brackets. In the above quotation from the lexicon, after "Col. ii. 9", Thayer has made an addition to show the meaning of 'theotes' according to the understanding of  Trench, Lightfoot and Meyer, all of whom are trinitarians.
So the definitions and meanings expressed were of trinitarians.

Mark: This confusion can be clearly seen in the Watchtower's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. Editions 1969 and 1985 are effective tools that can be used in witnessing encounters. Let me explain: In the interlinear (1985 edition) section of Col. 2:9 "Theotes" is translated divinity.  As stated previously some scholars accept theotes as meaning divinity which could convey the rendering "divine quality," but this seems to be a gray area in which the Watchtower Society has focused on. For in their Kingdom Interlinear Translation of
the Greek Scriptures first published in 1969, Col. 2:9 "theotes" is translated "godship," this is an accepted translation and presents the idea of "deity" more clearly than "divinity." (1969 edition) The confusion is also easily detected in the same Kingdom Interlinear (1985ed) at Romans 1:20. Here "theiotes" in the interlinear section is incorrectly translated "godship". When in fact according to Thayer it should be "divinity". The Kingdom
Interlinear (1985ed) has used this gray area of translation to confuse the two Greek words "theotes" and "theiotes" in an attempt to support their view that Jesus Christ is not God.

Mark: The Watchtower also uses another interlinear that is quite useful in this study. It is know as The Emphatic Diaglott. It is published by the Watchtower but it is not produced by them...which correctly translates the word "deity"

What Have Other Scholars Said?
A.T Robertson who is recognized as the worlds for most authoritative grammarian said
in his scholarly book Word Pictures In The New Testament:

    "There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead
    (the very essence of God, from 'Theos,' deity) and not to be confused with
    'Theiotes' in Romans 1:20 (from 'Theios,' the quality of God, divinity), here
    only in N.T. as 'Theiote' only in Romans 1:20. The distinction is observed in
    Lucian and Plutarch. 'Theiotes' occurs in the papyri and inscriptions."10

The Expositor's Greek Testament, confirms A.T Robertson on this issue:

    "The word ("Theotes") is to be distinguished from "Theiotes" as Deity, the
    being God, from Divinity, the being Divine or Godlike. The passage thus
    asserts the real Deity of Christ."

Reply: But what of other scholars? Does it mean only 'deity'? Does it bear the sense of 'divinity' and/or 'divine nature'? Edward Robinson in his Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 334, reports: "divinity, divine nature".
Liddell and Scott's A Greek–English Lexicon, page 792, says: "divinity, divine nature".
E.A. Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, page 578, discloses: "divinity , deity, godhead".
Clinton Morrison, as found in An Analytical Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, page 139, relates: "deity, divinity".
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 2, page 66, states: "deity, divinity".
The Abington Bible Commentary, offers: "The totality of divine attributes is present as a whole in one 'Body' or concrete individual personality", page 1257.
The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich lexicon [BAGD], on page 359, defines it as: "deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for theos...the fullness of a deity Col.2:9". [abstract noun, a quality or attribute].
The Eerdman's Analytical Concordance to the RSV states: "deity, 1. QEION (Acts 17:29), 2. QEIOTHS (Rom 1:20), 3. QEOTHTOS (Col 2:9). p.251
See also The Anchor Bible: Colossians, by Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke (Doubleday, 1994), pp. 312 and 363; also volume 3 of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by
Kittel, page 119. "Abstract nouns by their very nature focus on a quality." (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 226.
Or, as a note in Kittel reads, "The hEIS QEOS [One God] of the OT has attracted to Himself all divine power in the cosmos, and on the early Christian view He has given this fullness of power to Christ as the Bearer of the divine office."

Counter all this with the translators in the above chart and you will see that many do not see much difference in the 2 words at all.

Mark: What Are The Historical Roots of "Theotes" and "Theiotes"
James Hastings in his book A Dictionary of the Bible Dealing With Its Language, Literature, And Contents deals with these two words and one other that is closely related ("Theios-divine nature"), "Theiotes-divinity", and "Theotes-deity" informs us that:

    "In each case the Greek word is appropriately employed, and the one could
    not have been used for the other....Lightfoot on Col 2:9 expresses the
    difference between 'Theiotes' and 'Theotes' thus:'Theiotes' is the quality,
    'Theotes' the essence of God. The distinction is best seen by observing that
    'Theotes' comes from 'Theos' God, While 'Theiotes' comes from 'Theios'
    Divine....It is at once seen how appropriately St. Paul uses 'Theiotes' in
    Romans 1:20 where he speaks of such attributes of God as can be read in
    the book of Nature; and how appropriately 'Theotes' in Col 2:9 where he
    asserts of the Son that in Him dwells the fullness of the entire (revealed and
    unrevealed) Personality of God. The Latin Versions were forced to use
    divinitas for both words. But Its insufficiency to represent 'Theotes' was early
    felt....The same feeling is now finding expression in English, and theologians
    prefer to speak of the Deity rather than of the Divinity of Christ, since the
    former word alone give Him the full Personality of God. The English Versions
    from Wyclif to AV make no distinction, but use "Godhead" at both places,
    except that the Rheims in 1582 New Testament has "Divinity" at Romans
    1:20. Yet Beza (on Col. 2:9) had shown the distinction."

"The chief fault in the exponents of the distinction between the terms is that they have taken little or almost no account of the long history of the terms. Thay have made no attempt to correlate them with the history of thought. They have not asked whether the system of the author in question called for the distinction, but, taking the terms as the isolated expressions of the theorem, have picked up an example whereever it came their way. The only excuse for the hasty study of the larger context of the stock illustrations is the fact that the traditional view, having ruled interpretations for six centuries, has naturally fallen into the habit of taking itself for granted." NASH

Mark: J.B. Lightfoot whom James Hastings is referencing in his book St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, included more on the subject that was not covered in Hastings Dictionary, Lightfoot went on to say concerning Latin versions:
    "In the Latin versions, owing to the poverty of the language, both 'Theotes'
    and 'Theiotes' are translated by the same term divinity; but this was felt to be
    inadequate, and the word deity was coined at a later date to represent
    "Theotes."
Notice below that the Latin Vulgate shows what Lightfoot is referring to here is in both Romans 1:20 and Col. 2:9 with "divinitatis" occurring in both passages:
    "VUL Romans 1:20 invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta
    sunt intellecta conspiciuntur sempiterna quoque eius virtus et (divinitas) ut
    sint inexcusabiles."
    "VUL Colossians 2:9 quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo (divinitatis)
    corporaliter."
It is here in the Latin versions where the root of this gray area has been exposed. The Watchtower Society's book Insights On The Scriptures states of these Latin versions:
    "The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as 'divinity.' Thus,
    here too, there is a solid basis for rendering theiotes as referring to quality,
    not personality."
The Watchtower Society can do no more than present a Latin translation of the Greek original for their defense and assert that they have "a solid basis" for their own translation. What they neglect to say is that the Latin language has it's limitations in the translation process.

Notice below that the Latin Vulgate shows what Lightfoot is referring to here is in both Romans 1:20 and Col. 2:9 with "divinitatis" occurring in both passages

Professor Metzger explains it this way: "Although the Latin language is in general very suitable for use in making a translation from Greek, there still remain certain features which cannot be expressed in Latin."
Note: Bruce Metzger's article "The Jehovah's Witnesses And Jesus Christ" which appeared in Theology Today (page 77, {1953}), seems to suggest that he accepts the New World Translation of "divine quality." He writes: "Nothing could be clearer or more emphatic than this declaration. It means that everything without exception which goes to make up the godhead, or 'divine quality,' dwells or resides in Jesus Christ bodily, that is, is invested with a body in Jesus Christ." It seems Metzger defines "divine quality" the same as "deity," which posses a problem for the Watchtower Societies definition of "divine quality," because Metzger is a recognized authority in translating the Greek Bible. In concluding this study it seems clear that Paul's point is polemical against the idea that the fullness of God dwells anywhere else accept in Christ alone. Jesus Christ at the incarnation assumed humanity, and is forever the God-man (theanthropos).

di•vin•i•ty (di vin'i te) n., pl. -ties 1. the qualityof being divine; divine nature. 2. deity; godhood. 3. a divine being; God.
4. the Divinity, (sometimes l.c.) the Deity.
5. a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities.
6. the study or  science of divine things; theology.
7. godlike character; supreme excellence.
8. Also called divin'ity fudge. a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of
sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts.[1275–1325; ME divinite < AF < L divinitas. See DIVINE, -ITY]

And what are the primary definitions of Diety?
www.dictionary.com
de·i·ty (d-t) n., pl. de·i·ties.
1.A god or goddess.
2. a.The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.

So I ask, are we really just splitting hairs? Does it mean that Jesus is theanthropos/God-Man, (a word that is NOT in the Bible)? When the Bible says "the whole fulness of deity dwells in Christ [RSV]," are we to assume that this means that the full Trinity dwells in Christ Jesus? What does dwell mean?
 The Greek word for "dwelleth" is KATOIKEI which is a form of KATAOIKEO. This word comes from two Greek words, KATA (down) and OIKEO (to dwell). Thus KATAOIKEO refers to a "certain fixed" or "durable dwelling" (Cf. Matt. 2:23; 4:13; Luke 13:4; Acts 1:19). At Matt. 23:21, Jesus informed us that God "dwelt" (Emphatic Diaglott) in the first century temple of Jerusalem. We know that he really did not literally dwell as "heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house [temple] that I have builded!" 1 Kings 8:27 ASV
In Col. 1:19, Paul wrote that Christ was vested with "all fullness [PLHRWMA]" by Almighty God. This PLHRWMA *dwelled* in Christ, because of the God's "good pleasure."

As far as the word "Fulness", we have to remember that "thru union with Him you too are are filled with it" [Co, 2:10 Williams NT]  "Filled is the same Greek word EUDOKEO used in Col 1:19
These Christians are "filled with the very fulness of God" (Eph 3:19 Goodspeed)
This does not make them a Trinity or part of God.
In Christ we can see the qualities that God would have His followers display in their lives. Then Paul goes on to say: "For it is in him that all the fullness of God's nature lives embodied, and in union with him you too are filled with it."—AT.
The interesting connection is that even humans can be partakers of the "divine nature/being of God" [2 Peter 1:4], which, as we can see above, can be equivalent to "deity/godhead." To think that we can become part of some mysterious godhead is a stretch for the Bible and common sense. Instead, like the definition of Godhead at Romans 1:20 [MacArthur Study Bible above], the Kleist & Lilly New Testament says at 2 Peter 1:4 that "Grace enables us to think, love, desire and act as does God." By trying to add mysticism to the above Greek terms we miss the beauty of the Bible message, and many do all that in order that you become a "victim of 'philosophy' which is but an empty conceit resting on human tradition." Col 2:8
 

"For we believe that Christ is the embodiment of divine perfection."—Metropolitan Fan S. Noli, The New Testament.

"All the attributes of GOD".—Arthur E. Overbuy translation.

Heinz Schmitz
Jehovah's Witnesses