How do the Sahidic Coptic texts render John1:1, which available record is older?

Here is a link on review the book Truth in Translation by Jason Be Duhn; http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/Jason-David-BeD...

His whole agenda was to clear up who the word Logos was and it was with God. There are other translations that state the same thing.

This one attempts to explain it:

John 1:1

J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)

Prologue

1 1-5 At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.

This one explains it better, notice:

John 1:1

Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)

1 The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.

You have to understand the nature of Jesus Christ the word as spelled out in Col. 1:15 as well John 1:18 No man has SEEN GOD, the (Only Begotten) has explained Him.

Both terms Only Begotten & First born would not be attributed to Jehovah, but to the Son it applies.

The most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.

There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.

1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.

2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.

3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").

The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as "God." Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.

The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation—only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy in the minds of those ignorant of the facts.

It is only the Watchtower's pre-conceived heretical beliefs that are behind the dishonest and inconsistent translation that is the New World Translation. The New World Translation is most definitely not a valid version of God’s Word. There are minor differences among all the major English translations of the Bible. No English translation is perfect. However, while other Bible translators make minor mistakes in the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek text into English, the NWT intentionally changes the rendering of the text to conform to Jehovah’s Witness theology. The New World Translation is a perversion, not a version, of the Bible.

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/ScholarsAndCopti...

We can argue for or against the Coptic translation of "a god" or "the God" but one must understand this: either interpretation you make is inconclusive. We have read many articles on this subject matter and the strength of the argumentation depends on which religion you belong to. Your religion will dictate the interpretaiton that you accept. Getting into the Greek or Coptic translation does not help us draw a conclusion.

Perhaps you are using the logical fallacy of appealing to authority?

". it should also be recognized that by and large the Coptic version can be a valuable aid to the scholar engaged in textual criticism, and because in certain passages it preserves very ancient traditions of interpretation, it ought to be of considerable interest to the scholar working on the history and development of Christian doctrine."

"....can be a valuable aid....." ".....it ought to be of considerable interest...."-

The Sahidic Coptic helps but it's not the end all and be all of translations.

You quote: "........the fact remains that ou.noute means "a god." How do you back this up with the points you make here?

The information you present does not give any clear evidence that Jesus is "a god". It's basically your own opinion.

Edit:

Okay, now we are getting into the Koine Greek and Hebrew texts.

You quote: “…..then surely the Son of God compared to these is "Mighty God"”.

If that is how YOUR sect wants to interpret it as such, so be it. You must go with THEIR understanding, right?

I can give my understanding of who Christ was and still is but it will only contradict what you believe. So who is right, here? These scholars say this and that but what does YOUR sect say? We can throw passages out as well.

Your primary material should stand on its own without additional support but now you are referencing Greek and Hebrew. In other words you are adding to your weak argument. Where will this end?