I am glad you are paying attention and asking good questions because I have posted some of them repeatedly for 2 years and they have all been ignored. Since you just now seem to be waking up and actually reading my posts, then let's start with Meyer's NT Commentary. He doesn't agree with you at all. He essentially says the Word is a personification of God's spoken words, not Jesus, not a personal being, and references the OT repeatedly for that support. There is no mention of Jesus being "the Word who is God" anywhere in the Bible. I will provide the source and only a snippet of what Meyer's said, but it's lengthy so I recommend you go there and read it in your free time.
So Meyer's is a trinitarian who agrees the Word is not literally God.
source:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/1-1.htm
"Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς] the Word; for the reference to the history of the creation leaves room for no other meaning (therefore not Reason). John assumes that his readers understand the term, and, notwithstanding its great importance, regards every additional explanation of it as superfluous. Hence those interpretations fall of themselves to the ground, which are unhistorical, and imply anything of a quid pro quo, such as (1) that ὁ λόγος is the same as Ὁ ΛΕΓΌΜΕΝΟς, “the promised one” (Valla, Beza, Ernesti, Tittm., etc.); (2) that it stands for ὁ λέγων, “the speaker” (Storr, Eckerm., Justi, and others). Not less incorrect (3) is Hofmann’s interpretation (Schriftbeweis, I. 1, p. 109 f.): “ὁ λόγος is the word of God, the Gospel, the personal subject of which however, namely Christ, is here meant:” against which view it is decisive, first, that neither in
Revelation 19:13, nor elsewhere in the N. T., is Christ called ὁ λόγος merely as the subject—matter of the word; secondly, that in John, ὁ λόγος, without some additional definition, never once occurs as the designation of the Gospel, though it is often so used by Mark (
John 2:2,
John 4:14, al.), Luke (
John 1:2;
Acts 11:19, al.), and Paul (
Galatians 6:6;
1 Thessalonians 1:6); thirdly, that in the context, neither here (see especially
John 1:14) nor in
1 John 1:1 (see especially ὃ ἑωράκαμεν … καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν) does it seem allowable to depart in Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς from the immediate designation of the personal subject,[63] while this immediate designation, i.e. of the creative Word, is in our passage, from the obvious parallelism with the history of the creation, as clear and definite as it was appropriate it should be at the very commencement of the work. These reasons also tell substantially against the turn which Luthardt has given to Hofmann’s explanation: “ὁ λόγος is the word of God, which in Christ,
Hebrews 1:1, has gone forth into the world, and the theme of which was His own person.” See, on the other hand, Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 206 ff.; Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeit. p. 215; Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 116; Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p. 466. The investigation of the Logos idea can only lead to a true result when pursued by the path of history. But here, above all, history points us to the O. T.,[64] and most directly to Genesis 1, where the act of creation is effected by God speaking. The reality contained in this representation, anthropomorphic as to its form, of the revelation of Himself made in creation by God, who is in His own nature hidden, became the root of the Logos idea. The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (
Psalm 33:6;
Psalm 107:20;
Psalm 147:15;
Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (
Psalm 34:4;
Isaiah 40:8;
Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy."
