KJV translates: "the only begotten Son" (also NKJV, ASV, MKJV,
Douay, Young's, Darby, Webster, etc.)
RSV translates: "only Son" (also JB, NJB, LB, NEB, REB, BBE)
AT translates: "divine Only Son
Phillips translates: " divine and only Son"
Moffatt translates: "the divine One, the only Son"
NASB translates: "The only begotten God"
The trouble with Bowman's claims for this verse is that even many trinitarian scholars don't agree with him. Many early manuscripts have "only begotten huios (`Son')" here rather than "only begotten theos (`god/God')." Notice how many modern trinitarian translations above have "Son" here! - See the OBGOD study. This uncertainty alone certainly deflates any 'Jesus is God' idea for this scripture!
But even if we select, as JW's have, a text which uses theos here, we see that not all trinitarians are even willing to render that as "God"! Whether it is from context or from the grammatical problem that theos doesn't have the article with it (as in John 1:1) or some other reason, we see a number of respected trinitarians rendering this as "divine" (as in John 1:1)!
So, how does Dr. Goodspeed, the trinitarian expert endorsed by Bowman himself, translate John 1:18? :
"No one has ever seen God; it is the divine Only Son ... that has made him known."
OBGOD - Jn 1:18 - "only-begotten god" - NWT (Examining the Trinity)
Does Coptic John 1:18 contradict Coptic John 1:1? (NWT & Coptic)
DEF (Examining the Trinity)
THEON (Examining the Trinity)
Monogenes (only begotten) (Defending the NWT)
Begotten and Created (Examining the Trinity)