"Kaz, while I appreciate that this thread is dealing with the coptic view of John 1:1, I just wanted to point out that ONE view of something isn't always the way to go and that there are other views one must take into accoutn before we decide which one is the "correct" one for US."
I agree with the first part, i.e. that a preferred view isn't necessarily the way to go, but I disagree with the second part of your point. It's true that there can be more than one legitimate way to understand a text of Scripture, in light of our limited understanding. That's why I feel that valid grammatical alternatives should be given serious consideration and they should typically be footnoted. Sadly, it seems that few are willing to do this. However, and here is where we disagree, I wouldn't qualify an understanding as "'correct'...for US". I don't think that we should assume that a view is "correct" simply because it fits comfortably within our own set of theological presuppositions. IMO, there is no "'correct'...for US"; there is only correct and incorrect, at least when it comes to the original author's intent.
"The early church fathers got their view FIRST hand from the direct apostles of Jesus, like John, and not once was Jesus mentioned or viewed as 'a god'."
I don't think that the evidence supports such a blanket assertion. For example, Justin Martyr had these interesting words to say:
"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will." (Dialogue with Trypho, 56)
For years I have contemplated the possibility that Justin's reference to the LOGOS as "another god" emerged from his reflection on John 1:1c, where the Son is referred to as both LOGOS and as QEOS (= "a god", in context). I have since found that I am not alone in holding this view, as Adela Yarbro Collins has offered the same understanding:
"...the third clause of John 1:1 may be translated either 'the word was God' or 'the word was a god.' Justin Martyr apparently understood the passage in the latter way." (See "King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature", by John J. Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins), pp. 175 & 176
"In my humble view, John 1:1 does NOT state that Jesus is God ( the Father) NOT doe sit state that jesus is "simply" "a god" ( implying one of many), it does state the perfect union of Jesus and God, echoed in Colossians for example...Perhaps better translated as "All the God was, the Word was"."
Well, I would say that if "the Word was God" is the correct translation then John 1:1 could very naturally be saying that the LOGOS is the Father, or, more specifically, the "one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:6). This wouldn't necessarily result in modalism, as many mistakenly assume. It would result in a paradox, to be sure, but there are ways to resolve the paradox without resorting to modalism. Further, I question your use of the phrase "simply...a god". Calling the Son "a god" in relation to the Almighty God of the universe really doesn't strike me as something that can legitimately be referred to as "simply", at least not in the context of John 1, where this second god is instrumental in the creation of the entire universe, and is the only Son whose existence is defined by his priviledged position at the bosom of the Father.
As for the revised translation you've offered, "All the God was, the Word was", I would like to point out three things:
(i) This doesn't appear to be a valid translation of the Greek, but seems more like theological commentary, albeit ultra-concise commentary. Can you imagine how Trinitarians would excoriate the WTS if they dared to offer such a theologically loaded, unnatural rendering of a very strait-forward Greek clause?
(ii) The rendering is actually quite ambiguous. You don't realize this because, as a Trinitarian, you automatically fill in the gap with ideas that emerge from the presupposition of Trinitarianism. In saying this I don't mean to criticize you, for we all bring our presuppositions to the text, and I'm no exception. However, note that the "God" of clause B is the Father, yet Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is "All" that God the Father is. You don't believe that the Son is God the Father, first person of the Trinity, which he would have to be if he were really "All" that God the Father is to a Trinitarian. You don't believe that the Son is the begetter of the Son, which he would have to be if he were truly "All" that God the Father is to a Trinitarian. You don't believe that the Son is the one who has functional authority over the Son within the Trinitarian Godhead, which he would have to have if he were truly "All" that God the Father is to a Trinitarian. No, in the end you will allow the Son to instantiate only those attributes/characteristics that he can have as "God the Son, second person of the Trinity", nothing more, and nothing less. Its seems to me that one simply does not get that from John. It's brought to the text, not inferred from the text.
(iii) While the revised rendering you've offered does answer one of my questions, it doesn't answer the more important one: What kind of noun do you understand "QEOS" (=God) to be at John 1:1c? Is it a proper name, a proper noun, a proper noun functioning as the semantic equivalent of a proper name, a title, a definite noun, an indefinite noun, a mass noun, a count noun, an abstract noun, or something else? It is crucial that you identify what kind of noun it is, because this will help us determine whether what is argued by orthodox expositors is truly plausible, grammatically.