Sorry for the repost, Im new to this forum and I didn't know how to "tag" a person so to speak, I just wanted to make sure Oldhermit got this. Anyway lol...
Okay Oldhermit John 1:1, is a very controversial scripture with much debate about it. If you look to verse 14 please tell me your interpretation. You can use your king James, byington, or your standard version, they will all say the same thing. The 'Word' mentioned there is the same one being spoken of in verse 1. The verse is pretty self explanitory. So let me know what you think.
“[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Word became flesh.” This is not just a repeat of verse nine. Here John emphasizes the mode by which the Word came into the world. The Word had not just simply come into the world. He had done this before on many occasions as seen in the OT theophanies. Here, He is not merely appearing AS flesh as he did to Abraham in Genesis 18 and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This time he becomes flesh through the prenatal process. “Became flesh” must be recognized as a change of status. Such a change of status was not part of the previous theophanies. This is not just another theophonic manifestation, this is different. Now, the Word has become one of us. The Word was not simply transferred into the body of a man named Jesus to dwell in that body, rather, the Word himself became the man. This is a metamorphoses, not an indwelling. There is a transformation of form and substance. Every thought in chapter one is dedicated to this single proposition – “The Word became flesh.” This is the pivotal statement of John 1. Now, I am sure you will have questions regarding the idea of "only begotten" which I will explain later but in order to establish continuity for this discussion we need to begin with verse one. [/FONT][/FONT]