Do you mind if I just post here what he exactly said? As much as possible I do not want to misquote him, so here exactly is what he said:
His analysis of John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word
Lets read again Romans 1:2-3 to find that the holy scriptures prove that the “Word” is referring to God’s “promise” to send his Son, which he “announced” before:
“which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh”
The term “Word” in John 1:1 is not Christ himself but the “foreknowledge” or plan of god concerning Christ, lets read it again, in I Pet. 1:20 that says,
“foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, he has been manifested in the last times for your sakes.”
This pronouncement of apostle peter that Christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world” explain the statement in the gospel according to john “in the beginning was the word”. Hence, what was there in the beginning was not Christ himself but God’s “Word” or foreknowledge of him.
“foreknowledge” is defined by the dictionary as “knowledge of a thing before it happens or exists.”(Webster new universal unabridged dictionary)
If Christ had already been existing before the foundation of the world, then there would not any need to “foreknow” him. Therefore the fact that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world disproves his so-called pre-existence.
The word was with God
The clause “the word was with God” only approves that God and the Word are different from each other—that God is not the Word and vice versa, being with God in the beginning. The Word cannot be God in state of being because then it would appear that there are two Gods—the God with whom the Word was and the Word itself. Lets read john 17:1,3 to prove these, that says,
“…Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son, that your son also may glorify you,… And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true god and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
Christ taught that the Father is the only true God. Clearly, the True God, from whom the plan or thought to create Christ originated, is different from his plan.
And the word was God
So why then did apostle John state in john 1:1 that “the Word was God”? This is to describe the quality of the Word, which belonged to God. It is because God is almighty or powerful (gen. 35:11) and so are his words (Luke 1:37). thus, the “Word was God” indeed, but not in the sense that the “Word” is another divine being aside from God, but that it possesses the qualities and attributes of God. In John 1:1 the word “God” in the clause “the word was God” is used not as a noun but as an adjective. That is why in other renditions of the bible, such as Moffat and Godspeed, John 1:1 states: “the Word was divine”…
(That’s just two-thirds of his post, I may also post it here if you wanted to, just let me know.
So now, what are your rebuttals about that?)