How do non-Trinitarian denominations perceive supposed contradictions between John 1:1 vs John 1:14?

Clarify sense in which "the Word was God."

1. Word was 'a god' (grammatically defensible, view of early church logos theorists before Trinitarianism was a thing, view of JWs).

2. Word was 'goddish' (qualitatively the same, but not identical - view of Anthony Buzzard), or Word was 'divine' (view of Moffatt, although he's a Trinitarian it's compatible with certain Unitarian views).

3. Word was God figuratively (view of Bill Schlegel).

Note a simple identity claim for 1:1 is highly problematic for Trinitarians. The Son of God = God? Really? I thought God was 3 persons.

So, Trinitarians have to paraphrase 1:1 into 'Trinitarianese'. "The 2nd P of T was with [the 1st P of T? the Trinity like someone is with a team or company?], and the 2nd P of T was [the 2nd P of T? of a divine substance that is shared with the other Ps of the T?]" Something like one of these. Trying to get a consistent sense of the first use of 'God' and second is a bit tricky. Trinitarians tend to be reluctant to actually spell it out, preferring the keep an air of mystery about the whole verse, as is appropriate for what is essentially a mysterian approach.

So, that Unitarians et al. have to paraphrase a part of it isn't an argument against Unitarianism if coming from a Trinitarian perspective. Indeed, the paraphrase seems a lot more straightforward in the various main U options. It's more of a problem if arguing with modalists, say.

Alternately, can accept 1:1 as a strong identity claim but then deny 1:14 as meaning the incarnation. "The Word became flesh" in what sense (the underlying Greek verb is vague)? Incarnation is only obvious if you already have a theory of incarnation. The Word 'informed' the flesh? The Word was 'reflected' in the flesh? The flesh became an 'image' of God's Word?

My own view of the two is that 1:1 'the Word was God' is similar to how Moses was made God in Exodus - the prologue uses poetic language and this is figurative, like saying in a poem "in the beginning was the voice, and the voice was with God, and the voice was God," where the voice isn't literally God, just as Moses isn't literally made God in Exodus 7:1 although that's what God says in the text - God isn't speaking literally. 1:14, OTOH, is meant as 'the Word came in the flesh', as it is translated in Weymouth's, and of course we're dealing with a new beginning at 1:1a of the Christian era and bringing into existence of the Kingdom, not the Genesis beginning that none of the early Christians really cared about tbh, so we're not dealing with the Word coming from primordial space-time or something like that - rather, Jesus entering into society in his itinerant ministry.

This is an attempt to provide a simple answer without causing more questions.

The OP Q has a narrow focus which ignores important facts scripture provides.

1In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God… John 1:1

• We note the word with. If everyone agrees God is supposed to be one, then anything or anyone with God is not God as God is God but something other.

• We cannot then blithely ignore the with and say the logos was God anyway. Whatever, the word was God means it must make allowance for the with.

• By being responsible, we can say, as some have appropriately done, what God was the logos was. Or, the logos was divine, which God is but this does not ignore the with.

• “word,” “speech”, “principle”, “message” or “thought” are some other translations of logos found elsewhere in the NT. So we can say that whatever the logos is in John 1:1, it is not God as God is God, but fully represents God.

• 1John 1 (the same author) further describes the logos as a which not an entity or person as God obviously is.

• So we can now accept the logos became flesh v14 without contradiction. We can also accept the Gospels as written which do not include a complicated and mysterious incarnation - God became flesh.

• We also have the entire NT which expresses Jesus as a man only, even from Jesus’ own lips, John 8:40. Do we also blithely ignore or twist these clear statements to maintain a constructed dogma with no authority from the word of God?

• Finally, we have again, Jesus’ declaration that the Father is the only true God. The Apostles affirm this understanding consistently.

Thus Jesus cannot be God as God is God, but fully representative of Him (Heb 1:3) as declared with image and form etc. By allowing scripture to interpret scripture, we remove any confusion caused by taking one or two verse in isolation as the Q. suggests.

Of course Jesus - the logos become flesh, is now also with God - sitting at His right hand!

This is a Biblical Unitarian understanding of scripture. The supposed contradictions are only present with a dogmatic approach which accepts several presumptions by grasping at words in isolation of their fuller context.