Comparing Genesis 1 with John 1

[placebofactor]

Let’s compare Genesis 1 with John 1:

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning... John 1:1, "In the beginning..."

In the beginning what? Genesis 1, God (Elohim!)”

John 1:1 "Was the Word (Jesus) And the Word was with God (the Holy Spirit)." If ‘Word’ (speaking of Jesus) is written in upper case, then God (theos) has to also be in upper case.

So, the beginning begins with the ‘Word’ = (Jesus) and the (Holy Spirit) who is moving “Upon the surface of the waters,” with, Job 26:13, “By his (God’s) Spirit he has garnished (adorned) the heavens;”

John 1:1, "And the Word was God." Who’s the Word? John 1:14, “And the Word (Jesus) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.”

John 1: "The same (the Word) was in the beginning with God (the Holy Spirit)."

Genesis 1:1, ”In the beginning God,” the Hebrew here for God is Elohim referring to the Father, who sends his Son, and the Holy Spirit to create the heaven and earth.

John 1:3, "All things were made by Him (Jesus): and without Him was not anything made that was made."

John 1:4, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

John 1:5, "And the light (God’s glory) shineth in darkness."

Genesis 1:2, "Darkness was upon the face of the deep, and God, declared, “Let there be light." Only light exposes the darkness and brings life to the world.

History has a beginning. Therefore, a logical inference can be drawn, ‘If there were nothing in the past, there would be nothing today. Hence, God is before.”

Unlike pagan myths, philosophies, and theories, the Scriptures give a simple, concise account of creation. Scriptures bear the stamp of truth and provide a just and elevated view of God.
The idea of the word “in” means, ‘at the present time.’ Specifically, “in” this hour, minute, and very moment. “in” is limited by the word “beginning.” Therefore, when God spoke His first words, time began.

The Hebrew for ‘beginning’ is re’shiyth, whereas the Greek is “arche,” which speaks of time as the beginning or commencement of time, of all things, from everlasting.
The beginning of the gospel dispensation.

The beginning of a Christian experience.

It sometimes speaks of persons, the first primus, as,

“The first and the last.”

“The beginning and the end.”

The word also speaks of dignity, the first place, power, or dominion. It gives the reader a sense of preeminence, precedence, or princedom. In the abstract refers to rulers, magistrates, princes, persons of influence and authority, or civil rulers. The beginning, or first power, speaks of the princes or chiefs among angels, demons, and the powers of the underworld.

“In” also gives the idea of the commencement or beginning of things as we know them. There have been attempts to take the word beginning to mean the everlasting or eternity past. Not so! The word brings the idea of a starting point to the table.

John wrote, “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ).”

1 John 1, “That which was from the beginning, which we (the apostles) have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life (Jesus Christ).”

John 1:4, “In him (Jesus) was life;” Verse 14, and the “Word was made (became) flesh.”

John wrote that the apostles had heard and seen with their own eyes, looked upon, and handled the Lord Jesus, also called, 'the Word of God.'

The man Jesus presented Himself to us in our three higher senses: hearing, sight, and touch. To have handled is the proof of material reality. The Greek verb for “handled” means much more than to touch, to feel after, or to find.

This has been set up with the words, ‘see,’ or ‘seeing,’ used four times in the first three verses. Two different verbs for seeing are used. Horan (to see) and ‘theasthau;’ (to behold intelligently to signify what they were seeing.)

Translated, it would be, “The eternal Son who from eternity has entered time, we the apostles have not only handled as a material being, not only heard, not only seen with the physical eyes but have understood His meaning and significance.”

1 John 1:2-3, John writes, “For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness,”

This phrase is the heart of the verse. The verb ‘manifest’ in Greek indicates the fact of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The apostles could not have heard, seen, or handled the Lord; neither could they have had any knowledge of Christ’s eternal life with the Father unless the Father was willing to reveal this mystery to them in the person of his Son and the commission of the Holy Spirit. The person of Jesus was the mystery revealed.

1 Timothy 3:16, K.J.B. “God manifest in the flesh.” Also, Matthew 1:23 says, “And they shall call the (Jesus) name, Immanuel, God with us.”

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #20]
Right...it's never YOU that made a mistake. This time it's the corrupt bible.

Onewithhim, please tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611. You claim the King James is corrupt. In claiming the K.J.B. is corrupt, you have JUDGED millions and millions to spiritual death. Why? Because we understand Jesus Christ to be God to the glory of his Father. We also believe in the person of the Holy Spirit; and HE is the voice of the Father and the Son who teaches believers.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the person of the Holy Spirit, but IT is the breath of the Father, so they claim. Personally, from my 40 years of experience and relationships with Jehovah's Witnesses who I honestly like as people, you have all been hood-winked into using a corrupt Bible, listening to voices of darkness, and being led by fallen spirits.

Let me repeat my question: "Tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611?

I don't know the names of the versions before 1611. But surely you can't blame our, as you feel, "corrupt Bible" for leading us astray, because we used the King James Bible from 1889 up to around 1950 when the NWT was available. How did the NWT corrupt us when it wasn't even available before 1950?

The Witnesses were feeding off of Taze Russell until his death. Your teachings are his teachings. He was rejected back then, and your teachings are still rejected by 99% of the Christian community.

Let me answer the question for you: Before the K.J.B., there were very few of Tindal's English Bibles around. The Catholics would send their bishops out to confiscate any that were found, and then they burned them. When they caught up with Tindel, and those who helped him, they were all murdered. This was in the 16th century. Wycliff in the 14th century suffered the same fate for writing the Bible in English, death.

So, the only available Bible before the K.K.B. was the Latin Vulgate. They were written in Latin, with no English versions. Only bishops were allowed to have them, and for the most part, they were chained to their pews. If anyone was caught with one, it was jail or death.

Yes I knew this. So your point is...?

The teachings we accepted before Russell died were the teachings of the Bible. He told it like it was. No immortality of the soul, no Trinity, no hell-fire, and so on. And we determined that using the KJV.

Let me ask you or any other witness a question. Have the Witnesses changed any of their teachings since Russell died?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #20]
Right...it's never YOU that made a mistake. This time it's the corrupt bible.

Onewithhim, please tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611. You claim the King James is corrupt. In claiming the K.J.B. is corrupt, you have JUDGED millions and millions to spiritual death. Why? Because we understand Jesus Christ to be God to the glory of his Father. We also believe in the person of the Holy Spirit; and HE is the voice of the Father and the Son who teaches believers.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the person of the Holy Spirit, but IT is the breath of the Father, so they claim. Personally, from my 40 years of experience and relationships with Jehovah's Witnesses who I honestly like as people, you have all been hood-winked into using a corrupt Bible, listening to voices of darkness, and being led by fallen spirits.

Let me repeat my question: "Tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611?

I don't know the names of the versions before 1611. But surely you can't blame our, as you feel, "corrupt Bible" for leading us astray, because we used the King James Bible from 1889 up to around 1950 when the NWT was available. How did the NWT corrupt us when it wasn't even available before 1950?

The Witnesses were feeding off of Taze Russell until his death. Your teachings are his teachings. He was rejected back then, and your teachings are still rejected by 99% of the Christian community.

Let me answer the question for you: Before the K.J.B., there were very few of Tindal's English Bibles around. The Catholics would send their bishops out to confiscate any that were found, and then they burned them. When they caught up with Tindel, and those who helped him, they were all murdered. This was in the 16th century. Wycliff in the 14th century suffered the same fate for writing the Bible in English, death.

So, the only available Bible before the K.K.B. was the Latin Vulgate. They were written in Latin, with no English versions. Only bishops were allowed to have them, and for the most part, they were chained to their pews. If anyone was caught with one, it was jail or death.

Yes I knew this. So your point is...?

The teachings we accepted before Russell died were the teachings of the Bible. He told it like it was. No immortality of the soul, no Trinity, no hell-fire, and so on. And we determined that using the KJV.

Let me ask you or any other witness a question. Have the Witnesses changed any of their teachings since Russell died?

Yes, the light has grown brighter. The main doctrines are the same, but things like the celebration of the holidays, the use of the cross and the belief that Russell was the "faithful and wise servant" (Matt.24:45) were changed. Understanding comes with time in many cases.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #20]
Right...it's never YOU that made a mistake. This time it's the corrupt bible.

Onewithhim, please tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611. You claim the King James is corrupt. In claiming the K.J.B. is corrupt, you have JUDGED millions and millions to spiritual death. Why? Because we understand Jesus Christ to be God to the glory of his Father. We also believe in the person of the Holy Spirit; and HE is the voice of the Father and the Son who teaches believers.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the person of the Holy Spirit, but IT is the breath of the Father, so they claim. Personally, from my 40 years of experience and relationships with Jehovah's Witnesses who I honestly like as people, you have all been hood-winked into using a corrupt Bible, listening to voices of darkness, and being led by fallen spirits.

Let me repeat my question: "Tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611?

I don't know the names of the versions before 1611. But surely you can't blame our, as you feel, "corrupt Bible" for leading us astray, because we used the King James Bible from 1889 up to around 1950 when the NWT was available. How did the NWT corrupt us when it wasn't even available before 1950?

The Witnesses were feeding off of Taze Russell until his death. Your teachings are his teachings. He was rejected back then, and your teachings are still rejected by 99% of the Christian community.

Let me answer the question for you: Before the K.J.B., there were very few of Tindal's English Bibles around. The Catholics would send their bishops out to confiscate any that were found, and then they burned them. When they caught up with Tindel, and those who helped him, they were all murdered. This was in the 16th century. Wycliff in the 14th century suffered the same fate for writing the Bible in English, death.

So, the only available Bible before the K.K.B. was the Latin Vulgate. They were written in Latin, with no English versions. Only bishops were allowed to have them, and for the most part, they were chained to their pews. If anyone was caught with one, it was jail or death.

Yes I knew this. So your point is...?

The teachings we accepted before Russell died were the teachings of the Bible. He told it like it was. No immortality of the soul, no Trinity, no hell-fire, and so on. And we determined that using the KJV.

Let me ask you or any other witness a question. Have the Witnesses changed any of their teachings since Russell died?

Yes, the light has grown brighter. The main doctrines are the same, but things like the celebration of the holidays, the use of the cross and the belief that Russell was the "faithful and wise servant" (Matt.24:45) were changed. Understanding comes with time in many cases.

You just put four legs under my point. The changes made "the light has grown brighter" can only be supported because of the changes the Watchtower made in Revelation 1:1. They changed "The Revelation" implying this was to be the last revelation. But the Watchtower changed it to, "a revelation," implying the organization is going to get mre revelations in their future, or as you say, "the light will grow brighter."

[onewithhim]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #20]
Right...it's never YOU that made a mistake. This time it's the corrupt bible.

Onewithhim, please tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611. You claim the King James is corrupt. In claiming the K.J.B. is corrupt, you have JUDGED millions and millions to spiritual death. Why? Because we understand Jesus Christ to be God to the glory of his Father. We also believe in the person of the Holy Spirit; and HE is the voice of the Father and the Son who teaches believers.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the person of the Holy Spirit, but IT is the breath of the Father, so they claim. Personally, from my 40 years of experience and relationships with Jehovah's Witnesses who I honestly like as people, you have all been hood-winked into using a corrupt Bible, listening to voices of darkness, and being led by fallen spirits.

Let me repeat my question: "Tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611?

I don't know the names of the versions before 1611. But surely you can't blame our, as you feel, "corrupt Bible" for leading us astray, because we used the King James Bible from 1889 up to around 1950 when the NWT was available. How did the NWT corrupt us when it wasn't even available before 1950?

The Witnesses were feeding off of Taze Russell until his death. Your teachings are his teachings. He was rejected back then, and your teachings are still rejected by 99% of the Christian community.

Let me answer the question for you: Before the K.J.B., there were very few of Tindal's English Bibles around. The Catholics would send their bishops out to confiscate any that were found, and then they burned them. When they caught up with Tindel, and those who helped him, they were all murdered. This was in the 16th century. Wycliff in the 14th century suffered the same fate for writing the Bible in English, death.

So, the only available Bible before the K.K.B. was the Latin Vulgate. They were written in Latin, with no English versions. Only bishops were allowed to have them, and for the most part, they were chained to their pews. If anyone was caught with one, it was jail or death.

Yes I knew this. So your point is...?

The teachings we accepted before Russell died were the teachings of the Bible. He told it like it was. No immortality of the soul, no Trinity, no hell-fire, and so on. And we determined that using the KJV.

Let me ask you or any other witness a question. Have the Witnesses changed any of their teachings since Russell died?

Yes, the light has grown brighter. The main doctrines are the same, but things like the celebration of the holidays, the use of the cross and the belief that Russell was the "faithful and wise servant" (Matt.24:45) were changed. Understanding comes with time in many cases.

You just put four legs under my point. The changes made "the light has grown brighter" can only be supported because of the changes the Watchtower made in Revelation 1:1. They changed "The Revelation" implying this was to be the last revelation. But the Watchtower changed it to, "a revelation," implying the organization is going to get mre revelations in their future, or as you say, "the light will grow brighter."

You really nit-pick. Imagine arguing about changing "The Revelation" to "A Revelation." I don't see what you see. You are reacting to things in your own imagination. Your opinion isn't the be all and end all. Jehovah knew that the Revelation of Jesus was not the end of revelations to John. He wrote his last book, the Gospel of John, after the book of Revelation. Indeed, there was more to come after John penned the book of Revelation.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #20]
Right...it's never YOU that made a mistake. This time it's the corrupt bible.

Onewithhim, please tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611. You claim the King James is corrupt. In claiming the K.J.B. is corrupt, you have JUDGED millions and millions to spiritual death. Why? Because we understand Jesus Christ to be God to the glory of his Father. We also believe in the person of the Holy Spirit; and HE is the voice of the Father and the Son who teaches believers.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the person of the Holy Spirit, but IT is the breath of the Father, so they claim. Personally, from my 40 years of experience and relationships with Jehovah's Witnesses who I honestly like as people, you have all been hood-winked into using a corrupt Bible, listening to voices of darkness, and being led by fallen spirits.

Let me repeat my question: "Tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611?

I don't know the names of the versions before 1611. But surely you can't blame our, as you feel, "corrupt Bible" for leading us astray, because we used the King James Bible from 1889 up to around 1950 when the NWT was available. How did the NWT corrupt us when it wasn't even available before 1950?

The Witnesses were feeding off of Taze Russell until his death. Your teachings are his teachings. He was rejected back then, and your teachings are still rejected by 99% of the Christian community.

Let me answer the question for you: Before the K.J.B., there were very few of Tindal's English Bibles around. The Catholics would send their bishops out to confiscate any that were found, and then they burned them. When they caught up with Tindel, and those who helped him, they were all murdered. This was in the 16th century. Wycliff in the 14th century suffered the same fate for writing the Bible in English, death.

So, the only available Bible before the K.K.B. was the Latin Vulgate. They were written in Latin, with no English versions. Only bishops were allowed to have them, and for the most part, they were chained to their pews. If anyone was caught with one, it was jail or death.

Yes I knew this. So your point is...?

The teachings we accepted before Russell died were the teachings of the Bible. He told it like it was. No immortality of the soul, no Trinity, no hell-fire, and so on. And we determined that using the KJV.

Let me ask you or any other witness a question. Have the Witnesses changed any of their teachings since Russell died?

Yes, the light has grown brighter. The main doctrines are the same, but things like the celebration of the holidays, the use of the cross and the belief that Russell was the "faithful and wise servant" (Matt.24:45) were changed. Understanding comes with time in many cases.

You just put four legs under my point. The changes made "the light has grown brighter" can only be supported because of the changes the Watchtower made in Revelation 1:1. They changed "The Revelation" implying this was to be the last revelation. But the Watchtower changed it to, "a revelation," implying the organization is going to get mre revelations in their future, or as you say, "the light will grow brighter."

You really nit-pick. Imagine arguing about changing "The Revelation" to "A Revelation." I don't see what you see. You are reacting to things in your own imagination. Your opinion isn't the be all and end all. Jehovah knew that the Revelation of Jesus was not the end of revelations to John. He wrote his last book, the Gospel of John, after the book of Revelation. Indeed, there was more to come after John penned the book of Revelation.

Every word, every punctuation mark, and every article, definite or indefinite is important.

John wrote his book after he wrote Revelation, that's correct. So, my question is, what new thing did John tell us that we didn't already know? What was one of the most future events John witnessed in Revelation, that he carried over to his book of John? It's when he saw the Lord in Revelation 19:13. This was a completely new Revelation. No one knew the Lord was called the Word until John saw him in Revelation 19.

John saw the Lord Jesus, "clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

John carries that information over to John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In verse 14, "The Word (Jesus) was made flesh, and dwelt among us,"

Now we have a clear picture of Jesus from the beginning of the creation, John 1:1; when he came into the world as a child, John 1:14; and when he returns to destroy his enemies. "And out of his (Jesus) mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: he treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath."

His name or title, "the Word of God" indicates Jesus' incommunicable Godhead, as John 1 verifies.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #20]
Right...it's never YOU that made a mistake. This time it's the corrupt bible.

Onewithhim, please tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611. You claim the King James is corrupt. In claiming the K.J.B. is corrupt, you have JUDGED millions and millions to spiritual death. Why? Because we understand Jesus Christ to be God to the glory of his Father. We also believe in the person of the Holy Spirit; and HE is the voice of the Father and the Son who teaches believers.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the person of the Holy Spirit, but IT is the breath of the Father, so they claim. Personally, from my 40 years of experience and relationships with Jehovah's Witnesses who I honestly like as people, you have all been hood-winked into using a corrupt Bible, listening to voices of darkness, and being led by fallen spirits.

Let me repeat my question: "Tell me what Bible your Arian followers used before 1611?

I don't know the names of the versions before 1611. But surely you can't blame our, as you feel, "corrupt Bible" for leading us astray, because we used the King James Bible from 1889 up to around 1950 when the NWT was available. How did the NWT corrupt us when it wasn't even available before 1950?

The Witnesses were feeding off of Taze Russell until his death. Your teachings are his teachings. He was rejected back then, and your teachings are still rejected by 99% of the Christian community.

Let me answer the question for you: Before the K.J.B., there were very few of Tindal's English Bibles around. The Catholics would send their bishops out to confiscate any that were found, and then they burned them. When they caught up with Tindel, and those who helped him, they were all murdered. This was in the 16th century. Wycliff in the 14th century suffered the same fate for writing the Bible in English, death.

So, the only available Bible before the K.K.B. was the Latin Vulgate. They were written in Latin, with no English versions. Only bishops were allowed to have them, and for the most part, they were chained to their pews. If anyone was caught with one, it was jail or death.

Yes I knew this. So your point is...?

The teachings we accepted before Russell died were the teachings of the Bible. He told it like it was. No immortality of the soul, no Trinity, no hell-fire, and so on. And we determined that using the KJV.

Let me ask you or any other witness a question. Have the Witnesses changed any of their teachings since Russell died?

Yes, the light has grown brighter. The main doctrines are the same, but things like the celebration of the holidays, the use of the cross and the belief that Russell was the "faithful and wise servant" (Matt.24:45) were changed. Understanding comes with time in many cases.

You just put four legs under my point. The changes made "the light has grown brighter" can only be supported because of the changes the Watchtower made in Revelation 1:1. They changed "The Revelation" implying this was to be the last revelation. But the Watchtower changed it to, "a revelation," implying the organization is going to get mre revelations in their future, or as you say, "the light will grow brighter."

You really nit-pick. Imagine arguing about changing "The Revelation" to "A Revelation." I don't see what you see. You are reacting to things in your own imagination. Your opinion isn't the be all and end all. Jehovah knew that the Revelation of Jesus was not the end of revelations to John. He wrote his last book, the Gospel of John, after the book of Revelation. Indeed, there was more to come after John penned the book of Revelation.

Every word, every punctuation mark, and every article, definite or indefinite is important.

John wrote his book after he wrote Revelation, that's correct. So, my question is, what new thing did John tell us that we didn't already know? What was one of the most future events John witnessed in Revelation, that he carried over to his book of John? It's when he saw the Lord in Revelation 19:13. This was a completely new Revelation. No one knew the Lord was called the Word until John saw him in Revelation 19.

John saw the Lord Jesus, "clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

John carries that information over to John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In verse 14, "The Word (Jesus) was made flesh, and dwelt among us,"

Now we have a clear picture of Jesus from the beginning of the creation, John 1:1; when he came into the world as a child, John 1:14; and when he returns to destroy his enemies. "And out of his (Jesus) mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: he treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath."

His name or title, "the Word of God" indicates Jesus' incommunicable Godhead, as John 1 verifies.

There was no punctuation in Hebrew or Greek when the Bible was translated. A comma could have been misplaced, according to the translator's bias, and this has happened.

What did John tell us in his Gospel that we didn't already know? Well, there are many things related that were not included in the other three gospel accounts. There is much more evidence in John's Gospel concerning the subordination of Jesus to his Father. John 1:1 is no exception, if it is translated correctly. The Emphatic Diaglott by Wilson is another example of correct translation. Why the clear sayings of Jesus in John's gospel are ignored by people who are intent on making Jesus God, I have no idea. It is so clear.

You have God and the Word of God confused. Jesus was the Word of God who dwelt among us, but not God Himself. The title, Word of God, does not indicate Jesus' "incommunicable Godhead." I don't see any evidence of that. He being the Word of God doesn't set him on the same plane as God. When Gabriel came to announce to Mary that she would have the Messiah---the word of God to Mary---did that make Gabriel God?

[Bible_Student]

There was no punctuation in Hebrew or Greek when the Bible was translated. A comma could have been misplaced, according to the translator's bias, and this has happened.

What did John tell us in his Gospel that we didn't already know? Well, there are many things related that were not included in the other three gospel accounts. There is much more evidence in John's Gospel concerning the subordination of Jesus to his Father. is no exception, if it is translated correctly. The Emphatic Diaglott by Wilson is another example of correct translation. Why the clear sayings of Jesus in John's gospel are ignored by people who are intent on making Jesus God, I have no idea. It is so clear.

You have God and the Word of God confused. Jesus was the Word of God who dwelt among us, but not God Himself. The title, Word of God, does not indicate Jesus' "incommunicable Godhead." I don't see any evidence of that. He being the Word of God doesn't set him on the same plane as God. When Gabriel came to announce to Mary that she would have the Messiah---the word of God to Mary---did that make Gabriel God?

Excellent answer.

John remarks in the same chapter, merely a few verses after, that no one has seen God, and it is "the only begotten god who is in the bosom of the Father" that has provided the explanation.

Additionally, there are moments when Jesus informs the Jews that they have never perceived the voice of God. It is evident that Jesus did not consider himself to be God; how could he claim that they had never heard God's voice while addressing them directly?

[placebofactor]

Let’s compare Genesis 1 with John 1:

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning... John 1:1, "In the beginning..."

In the beginning what? Genesis 1, God (Elohim!)”

John 1:1 "Was the Word (Jesus) And the Word was with God (the Holy Spirit)." If ‘Word’ (speaking of Jesus) is written in upper case, then God (theos) has to also be in upper case.

So, the beginning begins with the ‘Word’ = (Jesus) and the (Holy Spirit) who is moving “Upon the surface of the waters,” with, Job 26:13, “By his (God’s) Spirit he has garnished (adorned) the heavens;”

John 1:1, "And the Word was God." Who’s the Word? John 1:14, “And the Word (Jesus) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.”

John 1: "The same (the Word) was in the beginning with God (the Holy Spirit)."

Genesis 1:1, ”In the beginning God,” the Hebrew here for God is Elohim referring to the Father, who sends his Son, and the Holy Spirit to create the heaven and earth.

John 1:3, "All things were made by Him (Jesus): and without Him was not anything made that was made."

John 1:4, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

John 1:5, "And the light (God’s glory) shineth in darkness."

Genesis 1:2, "Darkness was upon the face of the deep, and God, declared, “Let there be light." Only light exposes the darkness and brings life to the world.

History has a beginning. Therefore, a logical inference can be drawn, ‘If there were nothing in the past, there would be nothing today. Hence, God is before.”

Unlike pagan myths, philosophies, and theories, the Scriptures give a simple, concise account of creation. Scriptures bear the stamp of truth and provide a just and elevated view of God.
The idea of the word “in” means, ‘at the present time.’ Specifically, “in” this hour, minute, and very moment. “in” is limited by the word “beginning.” Therefore, when God spoke His first words, time began.

The Hebrew for ‘beginning’ is re’shiyth, whereas the Greek is “arche,” which speaks of time as the beginning or commencement of time, of all things, from everlasting.
The beginning of the gospel dispensation.

The beginning of a Christian experience.

It sometimes speaks of persons, the first primus, as,

“The first and the last.”

“The beginning and the end.”

The word also speaks of dignity, the first place, power, or dominion. It gives the reader a sense of preeminence, precedence, or princedom. In the abstract refers to rulers, magistrates, princes, persons of influence and authority, or civil rulers. The beginning, or first power, speaks of the princes or chiefs among angels, demons, and the powers of the underworld.

“In” also gives the idea of the commencement or beginning of things as we know them. There have been attempts to take the word beginning to mean the everlasting or eternity past. Not so! The word brings the idea of a starting point to the table.

John wrote, “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ).”

1 John 1, “That which was from the beginning, which we (the apostles) have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life (Jesus Christ).”

John 1:4, “In him (Jesus) was life;” Verse 14, and the “Word was made (became) flesh.”

John wrote that the apostles had heard and seen with their own eyes, looked upon, and handled the Lord Jesus, also called, 'the Word of God.'

The man Jesus presented Himself to us in our three higher senses: hearing, sight, and touch. To have handled is the proof of material reality. The Greek verb for “handled” means much more than to touch, to feel after, or to find.

This has been set up with the words, ‘see,’ or ‘seeing,’ used four times in the first three verses. Two different verbs for seeing are used. Horan (to see) and ‘theasthau;’ (to behold intelligently to signify what they were seeing.)

Translated, it would be, “The eternal Son who from eternity has entered time, we the apostles have not only handled as a material being, not only heard, not only seen with the physical eyes but have understood His meaning and significance.”

1 John 1:2-3, John writes, “For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness,”

This phrase is the heart of the verse. The verb ‘manifest’ in Greek indicates the fact of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The apostles could not have heard, seen, or handled the Lord; neither could they have had any knowledge of Christ’s eternal life with the Father unless the Father was willing to reveal this mystery to them in the person of his Son and the commission of the Holy Spirit. The person of Jesus was the mystery revealed.

1 Timothy 3:16, K.J.B. “God manifest in the flesh.” Also, Matthew 1:23 says, “And they shall call the (Jesus) name, Immanuel, God with us.”

In other versions, I Timothy 3:16 correctly says---not "God"---but He was manifest in the flesh. Check out other versions. "He" would be Jesus Christ, not God.

Who's the "He" referring to?

"Immanuel" does mean "God with us." It does not mean that Jesus is God but that he represented God here on Earth. That is how God is with us.

Only a Witness could interpret it that way. Too much of a streeeeeeeetch. "God was manifest in the flesh." Excuse me, N.W.T. "He was made manifest in the flesh." Okay, who's the "He"?

Concerning the creation. You say the Father sent the Son to Create the heavens and the earth. and you claim the Holy Spirit is the breath of the Father. Okay, we see the Holy Spirit moving ---- No, the N.W.T. changes the Spirit of God to "active force" moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."

What or who is an "Active force"? If you say it's the Father, or the breath of the Father ?????, then the Father did not send his Son as you claim, he came with the Son as an Active Force.

[placebofactor]

There was no punctuation in Hebrew or Greek when the Bible was translated. A comma could have been misplaced, according to the translator's bias, and this has happened.

What did John tell us in his Gospel that we didn't already know? Well, there are many things related that were not included in the other three gospel accounts. There is much more evidence in John's Gospel concerning the subordination of Jesus to his Father. is no exception, if it is translated correctly. The Emphatic Diaglott by Wilson is another example of correct translation. Why the clear sayings of Jesus in John's gospel are ignored by people who are intent on making Jesus God, I have no idea. It is so clear.

You have God and the Word of God confused. Jesus was the Word of God who dwelt among us, but not God Himself. The title, Word of God, does not indicate Jesus' "incommunicable Godhead." I don't see any evidence of that. He being the Word of God doesn't set him on the same plane as God. When Gabriel came to announce to Mary that she would have the Messiah---the word of God to Mary---did that make Gabriel God?

Excellent answer.

You wrote, "John remarks in the same chapter, merely a few verses after, that no one has seen God, and it is "the only begotten god who is in the bosom of the Father" that has provided the explanation.

Your wrong, Abram saw Jehovah, Manoah saw Jehovah, Joshua saw Jehovah, Moses heard Jehovah's voice, Adam walked with Jehovah, etc. Now if it wasn't the Father, it was his Son who is Jehovah.

Additionally, there are moments when Jesus informs the Jews that they have never perceived the voice of God. It is evident that Jesus did not consider himself to be God; how could he claim that they had never heard God's voice while addressing them directly?

Again, Jehovah spoke directly to Moses, Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, Manoah, his wife, and David.