You're already not doing what I asked. Currently you're just rewriting scripture to make it conform to your beliefs.
I didn't ask you to replace whatever you felt like replacing with whatever you felt like replacing it with.
I asked you to replace the pronoun "houtos" ("He") (because that's where your contention is, as you stated) and all of the following where relevant with either "she," "it," "this same," or any of the other GIVEN pronouns (from my post I quoted above), since your contention was that "he" in verse 2 was a mistranslation. So I asked you to provide your correction, to see if it hold up to scrutiny. So far, you've rewritten almost the entire first verse of the chapter.
Well at least this time, there's not much for you to mess up.
Alright, so far, your proposal has God's word being in the beginning, and being with God and being God, and that all things were made through God's word, and without God's word, nothing was made that was made. Fair. But this verse is where trouble begins for you, because you've now defined "God's word" as life, and being the light of men. You continued:
AKA, God's word shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Nothing wrong with saying this, on it's own, but within the greater context, you've now severed the tie-in between "LOGOS" and "reason" as opposed to "darkness" being related to "incomprehension," damaging the scripture.
Nothing changed here, good.
According to you, John was a witness of the light, which you have defined as "God's word," that all through John might believe.
Same as before, John wasn't the light he came to bear witness of, that being "God's word."
Again, according to you, the "true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world" is "God's word."
Woah! Why are you talking about Jesus all of a sudden?
Your interpretation has John talking about John and "God's word," not Jesus. Why change everything else up until this point to "God's word" but make this verse talking about Jesus? There's no point! Jesus isn't even a part of the discussion! It would be like me telling you about a speech I had to give at an event, and how important it was that my pastor was there to be a witness of it, and then suddenly stating that John Smith was serving drinks and meat to his family from his grill across the street in his backyard. Who the heck is John Smith? I don't know, some random person! But needing mentioning, but not getting an introduction...
Second, you've already stated your contention with using "He/Him" (referring to Jesus) in previous verses, so why change that now?
Third, you've already defined "the light" as "God's word." You don't get to just change the definition of it midway through the paragraph. That's not how ANY language works, and if you tried to do that in any civilized conversation, people would have absolutely zero idea what you were even talking about most of the time.
In other words, this is strike two.
If you were at all consistent, you would have said "God's word was in the world, and the world was made through God's word, and the world did not know God's word." Which wouldn't have made any sense, but at least it would have been consistent!
Supra, and this is where it falls apart for the most part, mainly because of your desire to interpret scripture according to your beliefs and reading your beliefs into the text, rather than the other way around, and letting scripture inform your beliefs, but also because of your inconsistency.
If you had been consistent like I said to be, you would have quickly realized, or maybe you already did, that using "God's word" instead of the "He/Him" pronouns throughout the passage doesn't work in this verse, because it reads as:
"God's word" came to "God's word's" own, and "God's word's" own did not receive "God's word."
Do you see the problem yet? But wait, it gets worse!
Corrected to be consistent with your beliefs:
"But as many as received "God's word", to them "God's word" gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in "God's word"'s name:"
It keeps adding up!
Nothing changed here.
And now for the final nail in the coffin:
So "God's word," which you have defined as "the light," and both WITH God and BEING God Himself, in the beginning, has now become flesh. Huge problem, because the only one who "became flesh" was Jesus Christ. But that would make Jesus "God's word."
Guess you can't get away from Him being God that easy!
Strike three! You're OUT! ... as the umpire would say. But wait, there's more!
Corrected so that it's consistent with your position:
John bore witness of "God's word" and cried out, saying, “This was "God's word" of whom I said, ‘ "God's word" who comes after me is preferred before me, for "God's word" was before me (in God's word).’ ”
Given the context of the surrounding books (not to mention the second half of this chapter!) we know that John was preaching and baptizing Bethabara beyond the Jordan. He's literally talking about Jesus here! But your position (if you were at all consistent with your beliefs) has John talking about "God's word" instead!
This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ - John 1:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:30&version=NKJV
He's talking about JESUS! That makes YOU, WRONG.
Guess what though! It's not over yet!
Same as above:
"And of "God's word"'s fullness we have all received, and grace for grace."
Again, why Jesus Christ if that isn't who was being spoken about through ALL of the previous verses in this chapter!?
According to your position, that last "he" should be "God's word," no?
Or could it be strike four, because again your position has no need for Jesus Christ, despite Him being the focus of the entire chapter, and renders the last sentence of this passage (not the chapter, of course) meaningless.
Notice how you completely missed the fact that verse 14 has your "God's word" being Jesus, and Him being God, completely destroying your position?
I used "LORD" for a reason, because I was referring to the Tetragrammaton, as Idolater explained to you.
Acts 2:36 isn't saying God made Jesus, period. It's saying God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. You were distracted by the "whom ye have crucified."
It's a trap only if your position is inconsistent with itself.
You claim Jesus was not God, but cannot bring yourself to admit that He was, in fact, good. Jesus said only God is good. Thus, your problem is not with my question, Dartman, but with your recognition of Jesus' goodness.
Is Jesus good?
I can answer that question with a simple and unequivocal YES!
Jesus was good, in EVERY way, shape, form, deed, action, etc.
No matter how you look at Him, He was good, and the ONLY way He could be so good is if He's God.
So, Dartman, Is Jesus good?
What context makes Jesus "not good"?
Why, in that context, is He "not good"?
Do you even HAVE an answer for that question? Or are you stubbornly not answering it because you know answering the question consistent to your beliefs makes Jesus out to be a liar, or worse, a lunatic?
Except that there's only one throne being discussed in BOTH passages.
Why do you assume they were in error? They knew the law, and blasphemy was a stonable offence, worthy of the death penalty. And what had just said was, in fact, blasphemy. He claimed to be the one to give eternal life (the only one who can promise that is God), and that no one can snatch His sheep out of His hand. And on top of that, He even made the claim "I and My Father are one."
You should have kept reading. For He then says that if he doesn't do the works of His Father, that they shouldn't believe Him, but if He does, even if they don't believe Him, they should believe the works, that they may know and believe that the Father is in Him, and He in the Father. (Which is also blasphemy, by the way, and their reactions confirm it.)
On the contrary, Jesus made claims to deity intentionally, in order to rile them up, working towards His goal of the cross.
On the contrary, Jesus tempered His claims to deity so that any who would listen and believe would come to Him,
On the contrary, Jesus made it clear enough that He was God, but not so clear that He would face an early trial for it. In addition, you seem to forget that Jesus is called the rock... "the Rock of Offence" and "a stumbling stone." He spoke in parables to hide the meaning of the stories from those who refused to hear. His divinity being one of those things He hid...
But unlike Adam, He was perfect, sinless. Good.
But you can't admit that, because then you would have to admit that He is God.