John 1:1, An Example of Confusion created by Bible Revisionism- Unit 2

Confusion graphic





Caused by BIBLE REVISIONISM (unit 2.)


The Bible is a book which not only endorses Logic and reasoning, it holds it as a banner waving in front of true understanding. Logic, reasoning and accurate understanding are all functions of the rational mind and therefore conjointly connected with GOD’s mind, his truth and his Bible.

The Bible’s position on soundness of mind, wisdom, logic and reasoning is encapsulated nicely in such verses as;

Prov 3:21 GNB “My child, hold on to your wisdom and insight. Never let them get away from you”.

2 Tim 1:7 YLT “for God did not give us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind”;

Romans 12:1 YLT “I call upon you, therefore, brethren, through the compassion of God, to present your bodies a sacrifice — living, sanctified, acceptable to God — your intelligent service;

Rom 12:2 ESV “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Job 28:28 NJB “Then he said to human beings, ‘Wisdom? – that is fear of the Lord; Intelligence? – avoidance of evil”.

Prov 3:21 GNB “My child, hold on to your wisdom and insight. Never let them get away from you”.

John 33 vs 14 graphic

These all imply mental capabilities connected to reason and logic. Reason and Logic are the mortal enemies of Ignorance and confusion. While Ignorance and confusion decimate one’s ability to make choices leading to actions which are most beneficial to one’s welfare, logic and reasoning liberate a mind from falsehood and make decisive action easy.

John 1:1 is by definition a profoundly iconic verse in the bible. Profound in the sense that it’s meaning deeply affects the way one not only discerns God himself, but how one understands the Bible. Iconic in the sense that it is one of the most widely used verses in support of a central doctrine that more than 3,000 denominations of Christendom hold as the bedrock for their faith.

Nowhere is the danger Bible ignorance holds demonstrated more clearly than in connection with John 1:1. There we see the meaning of a single verse twisted by so-called theologians to support a popular religious dogmatic doctrine. In this instance what may be seen by some as a seemingly minor error is shown to contribute ignorance and confusion in how one understands major portions of Bible truth. When one mis-understands any part of God’s message, it diminishes the power of God’s word to bring beneficial change to one’s life. And this dear reader cuts to the very root of God’s reason behind furnishing mankind with his word and preserving it for man’s posterity.

Since this verse is also an example of how correct understanding of even one verse sheds an entirely different light on overall Bible truth, we will devote this unit to analyzing John 1:1 from a stand point of reason and logic.

“IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself”. [Isa. 9:6.] AMP

Or as at least 15 other popular versions have it;
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. KJV

From reading these versions, you get the idea that The “Word (Christ) is God himself, which is exactly what supporters of the “Trinity Doctrine” want you to believe. That doctrine is where God YHWH, the father is seen as the same person as his son Jesus Christ. You may take it for granted that since there are so many Bible versions that read this way, they can’t all be wrong? . . ..Or Can they?

This is where ignorance enters into the picture. Those who promote the “Trinity Doctrine “don’t tell you that there are almost four times the number of versions which don’t agree with what they claim. They want you to be ignorant of the fact that there are at least seventy other versions of the Bible which do not support this translation of John 1:1.



For just three examples:

“In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the Word”.– The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, 1865— Publisher -Fowler Wells & Co, New York.

“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” – New World Translation, Watchtower Bible and Tract society, New York 1985

“When the world began, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God.” – BNT (Barclay New Testament (1969).-Collins (vol.1 in 1968; vol. 2)

None of these say the ‘Word” was God himself. While these examples aren’t among the popular versions endorsed by mainstream Christendom, they are none the less examples by translators who did not ignore the rest of the Bible says in their work.

To see a list of the seventy plus versions, see (

They all show the “Word” (Christ) as having divine qualities that are god-like, not as being God himself. Elsewhere in the Bible, Jesus Christ is pictured as the Son of God (Acts: 9:20, 2Cor.1:19, Heb. 4:9) In no instance is he ever depicted as God Almighty (YHWH), the one whom he himself refers to as his ‘father’.

For most people this should be more than enough to suggest applying their own logic and reasoning;

One needs to ask themselves a question; why do different Bible translators see the same verse so differently. Perhaps even before that question, one needs to ask themselves; what does the Bible as a whole say about the subject John 1:1 speaks to?

Not knowing that there are so many translators who disagree with versions painting Jesus, the son as God the father, contributes toward a following held ignorant even about the right questions to ask.

Now when one begins to ask those questions, and begins to apply logic and reasoning in finding the answers to them, one either discovers Bible truth which is liberating to them or begins to become still further confused.
For example let’s use a few verses conflicting with the idea of Jesus being the same person as his father is. In these we will see how applying logic can combat the ignorance caused by bad interpretation.

Matthew 16: 15-17 15 He said to them: You, though, who do you say I am?16 In answer Simon Peter said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.17 In response Jesus said to him: Happy you are, Simon, son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.

[Not only does this verse identify Jesus as the “Son of the living God” it also states It was not “flesh and blood” (Jesus) who revealed this. It was God who is not flesh and blood who revealed it. So they are two different beings.]

Matthew 20:23 23 He said to them: You will indeed drink my cup, but this sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.

[So God possessed something Jesus was not authorized to give. If they were the same person, they would have the same possessions and he would be authorized to use them as he saw fit.

John 14:2828 You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming [back] to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.

[One described as being greater cannot at the same time be the one who is lesser. Also they cannot be defined as co-equal and therefore, they may not be construed to be the same person.

John 11:41,42. 41 Therefore they took the stone away. Now Jesus raised his eyes heavenward and said: Father, I thank you that you have heard me.42 True, I knew that you always hear me; but on account of the crowd standing around I spoke, in order that they might believe that you sent me forth.

[So God sent Jesus forth, and God himself remained entirely in heaven while Jesus was on the earth. They are pictured as being separate entities in different places at the same time and not the same entity in different places at the same time. Also, by definition ‘the one who sends’ is not the same as ‘the one who is sent’.]

Anyone reading the above verses under a false premise that John 1:1 indicates Jesus is God Almighty, is in the very least confused and even more likely, left thinking the Bible contradicts itself when, according to correct translation it does not.

Applying Logic to the above verses exposes the erroneous translation of John 1:1, claiming Jesus to be God (capitalized), meaning God Almighty. Since scripture correctly understood does not conflict with itself the incorrect understanding is exposed.

In this instance ignorance of conflicting scripture has kept one away from discerning the real meaning of John 1:1.

Ignorance enters the picture another way. If one remains ignorant of the fact that the original Hebrew and Greek writings did not differentiate between capitalized letters and non-capitalized words, one will attach a meaning to the word “God” that the original writers never intended. We have already seen where this was the case with John 1:1. Here are two other important verses where this same error is found;

Isa 9:6 A child is born to us! A son is given to us! And he will be our ruler. He will be called, “Wonderful Counselor,” “Mighty God,” “Eternal Father,” “Prince of Peace.”
Here capitalizing the word ‘god’ where it never had a capital letter intended and mistakenly thinking the word ‘mighty’ god has the same meaning as ‘almighty’ god has led believers to ignorantly believe this verse supports their flawed Trinity Doctrine.

Likewise at John 20:28;

ESV John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Which should read Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” god”

Here changing ‘god’ to ‘God’ supports the Trinity Doctrine whereas god (lowercase) carries the original intended meaning that Thomas saw Jesus as being god-like. Coincidentally, these are two more occasions where the correct rendering destroys what Trinity supporters cite as prime evidence for their man-made “Trinity Doctrine”. For a comprehensive dissertation proving the “Trinity Teaching” of Christendom” to be a man-made flawed dogmatic doctrine conceived centuries after Christ’s earthly ministry, see “IT IS WRITTEN, Volume III. Chapter 12, pp 325-362.

Now we see how having the wrong understanding about who the “Word” is at John 1:1 contributes to confusion and makes the Bible appear to be contradicting itself while it is not confusing when translated correctly.

This is not the only lesson we learn from John 1:1. In that same verse there is another lesson, showing us how a limited or partially correct translation can prevent us from taking a fuller and more important meaning from this very important Bible verse. In this same verse the original expression “Logos” (Greek) is incompetently transliterated into English as “The Word”. While most versions correctly identify this one as Christ, much meaning is lost from what the original writers had in mind when they used “The Logos” rather than “the Word”. We will take up the ignored meaning for this word in the next unit (no. 3.) in this series.