You and me both, friend.
I don’t even know where to begin…I feel like I should say something, but at the same time I don’t want to cause a fight. Suffice it to say that several of the OP’s underlying presuppositions (if I am reading his reply to me correctly) are dubious. For one thing, Alexandria was never the same Church as Rome. They were in communion of course, but you need only go to Alexandria one day and Rome another day and you will see that they are not the same place. I am not being snarky; I put it that way to emphasize that it is in the local traditions and customs of a particular place (and the Church at that particular place) that you will find the tradition received by the Alexandrians, or the Romans, or the Antiochians, or the whoevers. And these were never the same tradition. For instance, it has apparently always been part of Constantinopolitan tradition that the Trisagion prayer (what we call in Coptic, borrowing from the Greek in which we still say, the “Agios”) was received by the Church in a particular way. This received tradition is not the same as the received tradition regarding that prayer in the Alexandrian (Coptic) or Antiochian (Syriac) churches. Likewise, the Antiochian Syriacs have certain traditions regarding a particular understanding of St. Peter which are not the same as the Coptic, and are likewise not the same as the Roman (which of course is its own tradition regarding Peter’s place in the Church and what it means for proper ecclesiology). The Ethiopians even have traditions regarding Pontius Pilate that are not shared by anyone else, and yet they remain in communion with the Copts, Syriac Orthodox, Armenians, etc. So merely having a different tradition regarding the role of any particular person or any other particular part of Church history is not sufficient to say that one tradition or another has “failed”. There are all kinds of traditions in the Church, even within the much more monolithic Roman or Latin cultural sphere (e.g., Latins in the Iberian peninsula are distinct ritualistically and historically from Latins in, say, England). In this, we can say Coptic tradition no more ‘failed’ as evidenced by the schism than did Byzantine Greek or Latin tradition did. Of course, as an Evangelical it is in some sense natural for you to take the Latin/Roman/Greek/Imperial/Chalcedonian view as being the default, but please keep in mind that not everyone sees things this way. This will make future posts on this topic much more fruitful, should there be any.
What’s more, your understanding of the Bible as static and unitary is ahistorical. In that there is not a fixed Biblical canon in the Orthodox Church, it matters little that the Coptic Bible may be in a accord to a greater degree with the Latin (though they are not the same, as you state; they are largely the same). The Alexandrian hermeneutic tradition, which I take it is what you’re really referring to in this thread, if not in those exact words, is worlds apart from that of the West, or even that of Antioch. I’ll let Fr. Lazarus al-Anthony explain it to you, since he certainly knows it better than I do:
Fr. Lazarus on the Bible in the Alexandrian tradition