I have no doubt that the Geneva Bible was popular with the readers but not with King James who found fault with its renderings against the divine right of Kings, and sought to bring forth his own translation to try and replace the Geneva Bible in the hearts of its readers. Many of the clergy too felt that its marginal notes were out of harmony with their teachings and did not approve of it.
So.....
"In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God". . . .
"All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made."
But I still do not see how God can be described as an "it". The holy spirit was said to be the means used in creation, and I can rightly see how the HS can be described as an "it" because it is not a person....but not the superlative Creator.....how is that not demeaning?
The logos
was with God ("ho theos") so he could not
be "God".....and the "logos" was referred to as just "theos"....this is describing someone who is "God-like"..."divine", as it goes on to describe him in verse 14.....
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
If the "logos" "became flesh and resided among" then, how is the word "God"? The Word was the son, but the Word was not God.
John was among the ones who saw the glorified Jesus at his transfiguration. He is identifying the son of God as the "logos".
If Jesus said....
"No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man."
John 6:38...
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."
John 17:5...."And now You, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world existed."
Why can't we believe that he came down from heaven, and existed with the Father before all creation, just as he said he did?
Is there some impediment in scripture that precludes Jesus having a pre-human existence and returning to his former life and position after this mission was successfully completed?
God has servants and even Jesus is described as
"God's holy servant" (Acts 4:27).
The angels are in God's service and apparently have rank and responsibilities. Michael is the Archangel who is the Commander and Chief of the angelic forces. He has been from their beginning, involved in carrying out the mighty deeds recorded in Israel's history.
I have commented about the role of Michael and how he may well be this trusted "firstborn son" who was "sent" to redeem mankind. The designation of "firstborn" with regard to Jesus has to mean "firstborn of
ALL creation" (which includes the angels) as Paul says, (Colossians 1:15) because he was not the
first "son of God" on earth....Adam was. (Luke 3:38)
I guess we see things very differently regarding the role played by God's son.
Can I ask you why you believe Jesus needed to be born as a human child in order to redeem mankind?