To what end, GG? Why would you want to perform the comparison? What would be the thesis of your research?
And you apply 'scientific' research methods to this subject area how?
Anyway, the point is, in John 1:1, with the anarthrous noun being in the predicate position (a predicate nominative) and the arthrous noun as the subject nominative, the correct translation is 'And the word was God'. This is the predicate nominative construction and it recurs throughout the NT.
It just occurred to me that you might think that word order is significant. No. You could write 'ho logos eyn theos' or 'theos eyn ho logos'. Both translate as 'The Word was God'. Greek speakers may have used different order for different emphasis, but in an inflected language like Greek, the case and verbal endings determine the meaning, not word order. With the predicate nominative construction, the construction under discussion here, the nominative noun with the article is the subject and the one without is the predicate, irrespective of the order. If both nouns, or neither, has the article, different rules apply. Period. That's the way it is. Like English, Greek is loaded with idiomatic constructions that are directed by rules and conventions. They may not be to your liking, they may not translate to accommodate preconceived notions of what they mean, but they mean what the Greek manuscripts indicate they mean. If you believe the scriptures, it is in the Greek that the truth lies. If you don't believe, well, have a nice day.
) which means 'divine'. This is not using the noun as an adjective, it's using an adjective, which has the same root as the noun, as an adjective. 
In 2 Peter 1:3,4, the word used is not '[ho] theos'. It is the adjective 'theios, a, ov', (note the iota - this is not a spelling mistake
Verse 3', '...teys theios dunameohs autou...' translates 'the divine power of Him', or better, 'His divine power'. Verse 4 similarly uses 'theias', an adjective, as an adjective, '...geneysthe (future) theias (divine) koinohnoi (partakers) phuseyohs (nature, fem. 3rd decl)', translated in the KJV as, '["by these promises" referred to in v.4a], ye might be partakers of the divine nature'.
Acts 17:29 again uses the adjective 'theios', but here uses it as a substantive, '...toh theion eivai homoion...' which is translated variously as 'the Godhead' or 'the Trinity' This is the same as the substantives, adjectives used as nouns, not nouns used as adjectives, I described in a previous post, like 'the blessed ones' or 'the evil one', or as here, 'the divine one'.
Col. 2:9 is a beautiful verse. 'hoti en autoh katoikei pan toh pleyrohma teys theoteytos sohmatikohs', 'Because in Him (referring of course to Jesus from verse 8) dwells bodily all the fullness of the Godhead (I prefer 'God' here, or at least 'Deity', but the proper translation of 'hey theoteys, theoteytos', a 3rd. decl. feminine noun, is 'deity or Godhead'. So this is a case of a noun being used as a noun, here in the possessive genitive case, 'God's fullness'. As far as I can see, this verse doesn't use 'theos' at all, let alone 'theos' translated adjectively as 'divine' or 'godly'.
Now, as for your misunderstanding of the use of the article, I'll give it one more (brief) shot but I really can't spend so much time on this, especially when you don't seem prepared to listen. Do you think I'm making up these grammatical rules just to confound you? I'm new to koine Greek myself and consider myself just beyond the basics after over two years of (self-)study. You display no real knowledge of Greek at all - I suspect you're just grabbing from the internet or from translations promoting your particular flavour of 'theology'. Anyway, that's your business.
John 1:1 has two occurrences of the noun 'theos'. The first is in the accusative case and uses the article. It follows the preposition 'pros'. When 'pros' is followed by the accusative, it means 'with (or "to, toward")'.
Nouns in Greek usually are preceded by the definite article, unless the indefinite is clearly intended - that's the default, so to speak. Of course, there are many exceptions. Also, in many cases, especially with conceptual, more abstract ideas, the article is not translated into English. For example, as I said before, 'hey agapey' is translated almost always as 'love', not 'the love'. The noun 'ho theos' is the same. It is almost always translated as 'God', not 'the God.' Such is the case with the 'ton theon' of line 1, so it's properly translated as 'with God' not 'with the God' which would be poor English idiom by any standard. Remember, context is all important to arrive at a proper translation - no matter what your particular brand of theology, I think it's fair to assume that John would not be referring to 'a' god amongst others. When the context suggests that the article makes more sense, such as 'the God of our fathers is with us' or 'the love He gives us is true', a good translation would use it. Common sense should prevail for translations in order to achieve a proper rendering into idiomatic English that also properly conveys the scriptural (Greek) intention.
Anyway, understanding the Greek to arrive at the best interpretation is harder. The main exceptions to the above rule are when a specific construction is intended, such as the predicate nominative we've been talking about. That's the case and construction involved with the second 'theos' in this verse. As I described at length in previous posts, the noun without the article (theos) in this construction is the predicate nominative, the noun with the article (ho logos) is the subject nominative. That's the rule. If 'theos' had the article and 'logos' no article, it would be properly translated 'And God was the word'. If both, or neither, had the article, it could be translated either 'And God was the word' or 'And the word was God'. The fact is, as the Greek indicates, the correct translation into idiomatic English, no matter what your particular theological bent, is 'And the word was God'. That's the way it is - Greek language studies, just like theology, have a history upon which we base our current work. It's commonly known as 'Don't re-invent the wheel' unless you've got a better design.
For the sake of completeness, I'll remind you that the word order has no effect - in fact the copulative verb need not even be present, although it seems to me it usually is when two nouns are involved as opposed to a noun and an adjective (eg. 'ho logos kalos', 'kalos ho logos', 'kalos estiv ho logos' and 'kalos ho logos estiv' all mean 'the word is beautiful').
Just as an aside, moving the article to directly in front of the adjective as in 'ho logos ho kalos' (yes, there are two articles on this attributive mode when the adjective follows the noun - rules, rules, rules!), or as in 'ho kalos logos', changes things. The adjective is now in the attributive position and would be translated as 'the beautiful word'.
So, I hope you appreciate that the lack of the article on the second 'theos' is significant, but not for the reasons you imagine. The writer is not trying to distinguish the God of the first 'theos' from the God of the second 'theos'. With a wink and a nod to Gertrude Stein, to John, 'his God is his God is his God'.
Quickly, concerning Buzzard. There are only so many hours in the week and there are so many books (theories, subjects, articles, references, etc.) to consider, study and critique, and that all over and above the scriptures, which are, or at least could be, full time. My theology and beliefs are far beyond the questioning of basic Christianity. I don't believe things on the basis of personal subjective opinion. I've already considered the truth of scriptures, the existence of God, the deity of Christ and the Trinity. That's not to say I think I've nothing more to learn. Not at all. I just want to make the best use of my time.
I've heard the theologies of many including Unitarians. Those who don't believe in the deity of Christ are, by definition, not Christian, and therefore, in spiritual trouble. Those who waffle about it need the help of Jesus, and my help if they want it to find Him. I don't need their help. Jesus Christ is all the help I need.
I hope that's honest enough for you
In 2 Peter 1:3,4, the word used is not '[ho] theos'. It is the adjective 'theios, a, ov', (note the iota - this is not a spelling mistake
Verse 3', '...teys theios dunameohs autou...' translates 'the divine power of Him', or better, 'His divine power'. Verse 4 similarly uses 'theias', an adjective, as an adjective, '...geneysthe (future) theias (divine) koinohnoi (partakers) phuseyohs (nature, fem. 3rd decl)', translated in the KJV as, '["by these promises" referred to in v.4a], ye might be partakers of the divine nature'.
Acts 17:29 again uses the adjective 'theios', but here uses it as a substantive, '...toh theion eivai homoion...' which is translated variously as 'the Godhead' or 'the Trinity' This is the same as the substantives, adjectives used as nouns, not nouns used as adjectives, I described in a previous post, like 'the blessed ones' or 'the evil one', or as here, 'the divine one'.
Col. 2:9 is a beautiful verse. 'hoti en autoh katoikei pan toh pleyrohma teys theoteytos sohmatikohs', 'Because in Him (referring of course to Jesus from verse 8) dwells bodily all the fullness of the Godhead (I prefer 'God' here, or at least 'Deity', but the proper translation of 'hey theoteys, theoteytos', a 3rd. decl. feminine noun, is 'deity or Godhead'. So this is a case of a noun being used as a noun, here in the possessive genitive case, 'God's fullness'. As far as I can see, this verse doesn't use 'theos' at all, let alone 'theos' translated adjectively as 'divine' or 'godly'.
Now, as for your misunderstanding of the use of the article, I'll give it one more (brief) shot but I really can't spend so much time on this, especially when you don't seem prepared to listen. Do you think I'm making up these grammatical rules just to confound you? I'm new to koine Greek myself and consider myself just beyond the basics after over two years of (self-)study. You display no real knowledge of Greek at all - I suspect you're just grabbing from the internet or from translations promoting your particular flavour of 'theology'. Anyway, that's your business.
John 1:1 has two occurrences of the noun 'theos'. The first is in the accusative case and uses the article. It follows the preposition 'pros'. When 'pros' is followed by the accusative, it means 'with (or "to, toward")'.
Nouns in Greek usually are preceded by the definite article, unless the indefinite is clearly intended - that's the default, so to speak. Of course, there are many exceptions. Also, in many cases, especially with conceptual, more abstract ideas, the article is not translated into English. For example, as I said before, 'hey agapey' is translated almost always as 'love', not 'the love'. The noun 'ho theos' is the same. It is almost always translated as 'God', not 'the God.' Such is the case with the 'ton theon' of line 1, so it's properly translated as 'with God' not 'with the God' which would be poor English idiom by any standard. Remember, context is all important to arrive at a proper translation - no matter what your particular brand of theology, I think it's fair to assume that John would not be referring to 'a' god amongst others. When the context suggests that the article makes more sense, such as 'the God of our fathers is with us' or 'the love He gives us is true', a good translation would use it. Common sense should prevail for translations in order to achieve a proper rendering into idiomatic English that also properly conveys the scriptural (Greek) intention.
Anyway, understanding the Greek to arrive at the best interpretation is harder. The main exceptions to the above rule are when a specific construction is intended, such as the predicate nominative we've been talking about. That's the case and construction involved with the second 'theos' in this verse. As I described at length in previous posts, the noun without the article (theos) in this construction is the predicate nominative, the noun with the article (ho logos) is the subject nominative. That's the rule. If 'theos' had the article and 'logos' no article, it would be properly translated 'And God was the word'. If both, or neither, had the article, it could be translated either 'And God was the word' or 'And the word was God'. The fact is, as the Greek indicates, the correct translation into idiomatic English, no matter what your particular theological bent, is 'And the word was God'. That's the way it is - Greek language studies, just like theology, have a history upon which we base our current work. It's commonly known as 'Don't re-invent the wheel' unless you've got a better design.
For the sake of completeness, I'll remind you that the word order has no effect - in fact the copulative verb need not even be present, although it seems to me it usually is when two nouns are involved as opposed to a noun and an adjective (eg. 'ho logos kalos', 'kalos ho logos', 'kalos estiv ho logos' and 'kalos ho logos estiv' all mean 'the word is beautiful').
Just as an aside, moving the article to directly in front of the adjective as in 'ho logos ho kalos' (yes, there are two articles on this attributive mode when the adjective follows the noun - rules, rules, rules!), or as in 'ho kalos logos', changes things. The adjective is now in the attributive position and would be translated as 'the beautiful word'.
So, I hope you appreciate that the lack of the article on the second 'theos' is significant, but not for the reasons you imagine. The writer is not trying to distinguish the God of the first 'theos' from the God of the second 'theos'. With a wink and a nod to Gertrude Stein, to John, 'his God is his God is his God'.
Quickly, concerning Buzzard. There are only so many hours in the week and there are so many books (theories, subjects, articles, references, etc.) to consider, study and critique, and that all over and above the scriptures, which are, or at least could be, full time. My theology and beliefs are far beyond the questioning of basic Christianity. I don't believe things on the basis of personal subjective opinion. I've already considered the truth of scriptures, the existence of God, the deity of Christ and the Trinity. That's not to say I think I've nothing more to learn. Not at all. I just want to make the best use of my time.
I've heard the theologies of many including Unitarians. Those who don't believe in the deity of Christ are, by definition, not Christian, and therefore, in spiritual trouble. Those who waffle about it need the help of Jesus, and my help if they want it to find Him. I don't need their help. Jesus Christ is all the help I need.
I hope that's honest enough for you
Actually I think you did mention word order earlier but as long as you know... 