Non sequitar. (It does not follow). There was, in fact, a beginning. The first act of God marked the beginning of time. That act was His begetting of His Son. There was no “before” this first act, since there was no time prior to the act.
Although the preposition “προς” often means (perhaps usually means) “toward,” to so translate it in this context makes no sense. Actually “with God” does make sense. If Mike agrees with Joe, he might say, “I’m with you Joe,” to indicate his agreement. The Logos, the Son of God, agrees with His Father in ALL matters, and so He is with His Father in this sense, much more than any human being is “with” another in the same sense.
It is incorrect to so translate it. “God” has no article, and so doesn’t refer to the true God, the one that Jesus addressed in His prayer. Also the word order, placing “God” before the verb indicated that “God” or “Divinity” is the kind of thing the Logos was—His very essence.
This Greek form occurs elsewhere in the New Testament. Here are some examples:
1.The clause “God is love” occurs in 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16. In both instances the word order is “ὁ θεος ἀγαπη ἐστιν” (The God love is). This word order (placing “love” before the verb “is”) indicates that “love” is the kind of thing God is—His very essence.
- “ὁ λογος ὁ σος ἀληθεια ἐστιν”— literally “The word the [one] of you truth is” (Your word is truth). Again by placing “truth” before “is”, implies that truth is the kind of thing God’s word is. Truth is the very essence of His word.
Whatever Martin Luther’s faults (persecution of Jews and Anabaptists), he was a good Greek scholar. Here is his brief assessment of
“θεος ἠν ὁ λογος”:
Sabellianism was the early form of what is now called “Modalism.” It is the teaching that God is one divine Person who expresses Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So their view is that John 1:1 is saying that the Logos is God Himself. But if that were John’s meaning, he would have written:
ὁ λογος ἠν ὁ θεος (The Logos was the God)," with the article “the” before “God.” So as Luther affirmed, the lack of an article is against this interpretation.
If John’s meaning was that the Logos was just another God besides the Father (as Luther believed Arius to have held), he would have written:
ὁ λογος ἠν θεος (The Logos was a God). Indeed, this is the very rendering found in the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But the placing of “God” before “was” does not permit that rendering.
The word order and lack of an article implies a translation something like this:
“The Logos was God essence” or “The Logos was divinity” or even “The Logos was divine.”
Like all Eusebius’ quibbles, when held to consistency they all vanish in a vapour… ppphh 
