Even early Church fathers admit that there are numerous problems in keeping the scriptures consistent. Scribes would sometimes feel the need to change wordings or make additions or deletions to the text. Sometimes they made mistakes as well. One prominent early Christian theologian and scholar, Origen Adamantius (184-253 AD) observed that there were great differences between different manuscripts of the same scriptures. In his writings, he also accused copyists of being neglectful in their work and of purposely making additions and deletions to the texts.
Celcus, a 2nd century opponent of early Christianity commented that Christian copyists altered the original Gospels to make it easier for them to face criticism of Christianity.
The Bible itself recognizes that there are issues with copyists changing passages and wording. In Revelation 22:18-19 it says:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
Changing scriptures happened in the early centuries. There's nothing we can do to change that and there is little we can do to figure out what the original words of the Bible were. This is putting aside the fact that the Gospels were written way after the death of Jesus and some parts of the Bible, like the letters from Paul, were written by people who never even met Jesus. How would Paul know whether or not Jesus was divine if he never met the guy?
Here's a specific example for you of a passage in the Bible that was deliberately changed to make one Christian's view point look like the correct one. In 1 John 5:7-8 it explicitly deliniates the Trinity:
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
When Erasmus took on the project of compiling Greek manuscripts that he had into a new copy of the Greek New Testament, he left out these two verses because they were not in ANY of the old Greek manuscripts that he had found in any libraries. The Church was not happy with this because the two verses were in the traditional Latin Vulgate and they are fundamental to Church belief. So they produced a Greek manuscript by translating the Latin Vulgate into Greek, gave it to Erasmus telling him is was a legitimate Greek manuscript. Thus, he copied it into his Greek New Testament, which was later the basis of the translation for the King James Bible.
Who knows how these two verses got into the Latin Vulgate in the first place? Perhaps some scribe didn't feel that the explanation of the Trinity was explicit enough and decided to add them in to help people out. It was not in any of the oldest manuscripts accessible by Erasmus so it must have been added later. When Erasmus put it in, the error was just perpetuated. Now the Church can turn around and point to those lines as justification for the Trinity.
I can give other examples if you like.
This is why I don't think that the Bible is a trustworthy source to answer questions like "Is Jesus Divine?" Perhaps it is the only source we have, but it will not explicitly and accurately answer the question. It is contradictary and unreliable.
As of right now, I do not believe that Jesus was divine. I think he had enough faith in God to be able to perform miracles on his behalf. I think he was a wise teacher. I think he is an excellent example of an upright and moral human being. Neither of those things indicate to me that he was divine.
Again you take it out of context. Did you ignore the verses before the 3 and the verses after?!?!?! 
. There is plenty of material out there on the subject for anyone truly interested.