I was told this thread "proves" John 1:1 can't be Jesus. That would contradict it's self. Notice The Word is capitalized indicating it's a proper noun or a name/title. If TheWord is not Jesus then we have a contradiction in John1:14 The Word became flesh.
"The Word" is not capitalized in Koine Greek. Words are not capitalized in Koine Greek to indicate proper nouns or names/titles.
I would have to agree with you that the "Word" is referring to Jesus in John 1. However, the "Word" may or may not be actually equated with the one true God. This might be hard to believe but when I was a Christian I found that there were many difficulties in the Bible. I was fortunate enough back then to come across a great bargain on a book entitled, "The Big Book of Bible Difficulties" by the popular apologist, Norman L. Geisler. Once I saw the size of this book I should have immediately abandoned my belief that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. I am ashamed how I held on to this view of the Bible for so long in my life. Ironically, this book of bible difficulties is actually a lot thicker than my Bible. When I lost my faith I was pissed that I spent $2.50 on this book but now I hold it up as an object lesson to those who think the bible is inerrant. Although it takes up a massive amount of room on my book shelf, I think it is at least worth the money to keep it around and use it as an object lesson as I keep my old Bible right next to it.
Anyway, there is no definite article before God in the last part of John 1:1 (...the Word was God). However, there is a definite article before God in the first mentioning of God in this verse. Norman L. Geisler states in this book: "In Greek, when the definite article is used, it often stresses the individual, and, when it is not present, it refers to the nature of the one denoted. Thus, the verse can be rendered, 'and the Word was of the nature of God'."
The JW's actually have a compelling argument concerning this verse and their translation of this verse ("...the Word was a God) could actually be more accurate than most "Trinitarian" translations of this verse. If the Word was only of the nature of God then this verse could actually be excluding Jesus from being the one true God as my son is of the nature of me but is not actually me.
But who knows, the Bible is written so ambiguously that only the writer of this section of John actually knows the correct meaning. The Bible was made up of different authors, writing different books, at different times, with different theologies for different purposes and it was written so ambiguously that what came out of all of it was different interpretations.
Gen 1:1 in the beginning god created... The original Hebrew shows the word translated as God there is pural. Elohim is also in a plural form showing clearly that God even when he created was still a trinity.
I would have to disagree with the two words you used in this sentence: "showing clearly". There are not very many things that are clearly shown in the bible and the doctrine of the Trinity is definitely not clearly shown in the bible. Iranaeus (120-202 AD) was an early church father and check out how he interpreted the Hebrew word Elohim. The "plural" you are referring to could be signified as "that which contains all" and not meaning a plurality of persons in the Godhead (the Trinity). Read section 3 of this letter of Iranaeus:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxxvi.html
In my estimation, a lot of the early "Church Fathers" before the council of Nicea seemed to have more of an Arian view of Christ and the Godhead.