Again, we are waiting for you to show us where there are two Gods mentioned in John 1:1??. Also if you wish to respond to the statement John used "in the beginning" to show Jesus eternal nature, I will gladly listen.
I think you put too much into John 1:1. The problem becomes apparent when one compares John 1:1 with 1 John 1:2. Both texts are from the same author, about the same time, and express the same thoughts. John 1:1 says the Word was "with God," 1 John 1:2 says the Word was "with the Father." Clearly John intends that "God" was "the Father." If John intends that the Word was "God Himself," he must mean the Word was "the Father", a conclusion not even trinitarians embrace.
"When John said that the Word was God he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God; he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being, that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like" (William Barclay, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, page 17). In this camp are the following: William Barclay, Martin Vincent, J.P. Lange, Robert Young, Brook Foss Westcott, Kenneth Wuest, George Turner, Julius Mantey, H.E. Dana, Moulton and Moffat. Typical of this view is the REB translation: "The Word was in God's presence, and what God was, the Word was."
It's possible that this was John's point. However, I believe the Bible Student view fits the context still better. As many students of the Bible are aware, the words "a" and "an" (called indefinite articles) do not exist in the Greek language. If one wished to say "I saw a tree," in Greek it would be "I saw tree" and everyone would know the intent is "a" tree. Therefore a translator would automatically supply it. This is done everywhere in the New Testament where the English word "a" or "an" appears.
So in John 1:1. The text actually says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was [a?] God." Should the translator supply the intended "a" or not? That is the question. Contrary to many vocal claims on this issue, it is a sound and reasonable thing to do. C. H. Dodd, driving force of the NEB, acknowledges "As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." (Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, 28, Jan. 1977, page). Notice that the translators of the King James version had no hesitation in using "a god" in Acts 28:6 where the context makes it obvious. (It also belongs in John 10:33, as the logic of Jesus' reply shows.)
A very good reason for adding "a" in John 1:1 is John 1:18, but the point is hidden in the King James version. Today it is generally acknowledged that the better, earlier Greek manuscripts of this verse refer to Jesus as "the only begotten god" (see the NASB for example). John there says no one has ever seen "God," but "the only begotten god, which is in the bosom of the Father," has appeared to declare what God is about. First it is clear that by "God" John means "the Father." Second it is clear that John has two gods in mind -- God himself, the unseen, and the son of God, Jesus, who in his own right is also a mighty being, "a god." Since John 1:18 distinguishes two mighty beings, it is apparent that John 1:1 also distinguishes two mighty beings.
