[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This is why I am bound to question what the right translation for "the Word was God" means, or if "God" there is different from the "God" the Word was with.....

To me, this is why there has to be distinction between what "God" Jesus is and what "God" the Father God is.....

God didn't become a man. The Son of God became a man. The Word, the SON of God, became flesh.

Not God. God is the one who sent His Son. God is the one who sacrificed His Son for us. God did not send Himself. God gave His only begotten Son.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Trapped,

John 1:1 shows distinction but not difference. The distinction is that two are mentioned -God and the Word. However, there is not a difference because the Word and God are God. This phrase "and the Word was God" states the proper Godhead of the Second of the Trinity.

Verse 14 also reveals that the Word was the Son.

John 1:14
"And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father) full of grace and reality"

This also confirms v1 that the Word, the Second in the Divine Trinity, is the Son, as does v18.

John 1:18
"No one has ever seen God, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him"

There is an abundance of additional scripture that also shows clearly that the Son is equal to the Father in the Godhead and is fully God and really man. Here's one that Bible-believer just posted:

"1Tim.3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

This confirms the meaning of John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh"... The Word, the Son, was with God, and was God, the second of the Trinity, and became a man (flesh).

Drake