So, let me go through each of the passages. First, there is Psalm 82:6. Here the psalmist has God saying to the people, ‘I said ‘You are "gods"’ If you read the passage in context, God is calling the rulers of men gods sarcastically; probably mimicing their own words. Note that immediately after the phrase quoted above he says "But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." Clearly, the word god is not being used here to describe some sort of deity or eternal supernatural being.
Next, consider Deuteronomy 10:17 and Psalm 136:2. Here we find the statement Jehovah Elohim is God of gods and Lord of lords This seems to be an exalted title, not a theological statement that there are other legitimate, supernatural gods. Jesus is also called King of kings. This title is exalting God the Father and other passages exalt Jesus the Son as chief among all that has been created, even above the supposed lords and ‘gods’ of men. It would be to distort these passages to use them to support the idea that these lords and "gods" have a supernatural reality of their own.
Now, let us look at Daniel 2:47. Here Nebuchadnezzar is calling Jehovah God of gods. Given that this title is given by a pagan who is not speaking authoritatively, it seems unlikely anyone would have the audacity to cite this as evidence for the reality of other "gods." Then there is Daniel 11:36. This passage is talking about Antiochus Epiphanes who literally exalted himself as a god. Surely the Bible does not agree with the claims of Antiochus Epiphanes! The prophecy continues by predicting that Antiochus "will say outrageous things against the God of gods." Clearly this passage is not giving legitimacy to there being other supernatural ‘gods."
1 Cor 8:5 is a bit different, as it asks rhetorically and a bit sarcastically, challenging the logic of those who worry about eating meat sacrificed to idols, if they believe such "gods" are anything when copared to the one God. In any case, he confirms the truth here, which is that "there is no God but one" and he calls the Greek idols "so-called gods."
This leaves us with the John 10 passage. To my mind, this is the only one which one could make at least a reasonable case might just possibly (but almost certainly not!) leave room for implying the reality to such "gods." The way Jesus spoke here is somewhat enigmatic. However, given the passage he quotes from, which clearly does not support belief that such "gods" are really supernatural beings, I conclude that Jesus is speaking ironically in John 10:35. I take it to mean something like this: "If you are able to accept that Psalm 82:6 has God calling the kings of men "gods" they why are you so troubled by me, the true Son God calling myself God." I will admit that John 10:34-35 is a difficult passage, but a good rule of biblical interpretation is to let difficult passages be interpreted in the light of clear passages. If we apply this principle, the conclusion is rather obvious, at least in my opinion.
This brings me to your main question: "would this support the belief that Jesus is "a God’ but not "The God" since John 1:1 didn’t put "Ton" before the second "GOD"? The answer is yes, you could abuse these passages to teach what they clearly do not teach if you so choose. This is what Jehovah’s Witness teachers do. However, one can hope that reasonable people can see through such obvious chicanery. Abuse of passages taken out of context is not a new thing, and I am afraid that our Jehovah Witness friends are masters at this methodology. Sure, you can use these passages this way, but it is a rather obvious abuse of what these passages clearly teach, which is that there is one God. Given that Jesus clearly claims deity for himself and the New Testament writers do so as well (I will not make the argument for this conclusion here, as the Q & A will get too long, and besides I do so several times at the web site–just do a search), the implications are crystal clear. Jesus is not "a god"–he is God. JWs commit a rather blatant grammatical error when they try to put an indefinite article in John 1:1. No Greek scholar will support this blatantly biased translation. It is so obviously done to prove a previously-conceived doctrine that it hardly deserves a response.
John Oakes, PhD