Thank you for a hypothetical wording on John 1:1–2, “If John 1:1,2 had used the word beginner not beginning, could it have changed the meaning and what could it have meant? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.”
If one substitute the word, beginner for beginning, the attribute of the Logos would be different and conflict with the subsequent verses.
The idea of beginner means a novice, a person who is learning, an inexperience person who may or more likely to make mistakes. The beginner is not mature or perfect. It would also imply that the beginner has a beginning. In other words the beginner can’t be God since the beginner would be inferior. There can’t be a “beginner” God.
The idea that the Logos is a beginner conflicts with the sentence that the Logos was God. If the Logos is God, then he can’t be a beginner. God describes himself as being omnipotent, omniscient, holy and righteous without beginning or end. The Logos would have those same attributes of God. The idea that the Logos is a beginner God is a form of Gnosticism.
Verse 3 states that all or everything came through him and not one thing was made apart from him. The question then becomes this, Would God entrust the creation of everything to a beginner God who would likely makes mistakes since he never created anything before? It must be remembered that the beginner is not omnipotent and or omniscience. That beginner has to learn. Thus with inferior knowledge and power, could he create a perfect world? In my view that is not possible. An imperfect being can’t create a perfect world.
SUMMARY: To interpret or substitute the word for beginning to a beginner would amount to Gnosticism. The Logos is God without any beginning and perfect in all his attributes as God is perfect in all his attributes.
For additional perspectives: