You're conflating two different beginning points. The beginning of Jesus' ministry (John 1) and the beginning of Creation (Genesis 1) are not really related aside from some common language.
Gen 1 and John 1 both talk about the creation of everything that was made. This is the same "Beginning". There are not two beginnings. John 1 starts with the Creation (as the one from Genesis), and goes on to describe the beginning of Jesus' ministry. But as with the genealogy of Jesus, it goes all the way back to Creation.
The Bible doesn't say what God was doing before creation aside from a few hints here and there, but there is no suggestion that God begin speaking until during the creation event.
So your theory about the Word pre-existing before there were Words doesn't really make any sense. We can demonstrate the silliness of what you're proposing by a simple statement: was God speaking to create before God was speaking to create?
You keep using the word "Word" as if it is the spoken words God uttered. That is not the case. The word "Word" is Logos, which is not just the words which God spoke, but is actually God (John 1:1). This is Jesus (John 1:14).
You have based your entire multi-person god hypothesis around one verse that says "Us" and "Our" so what you could do to support your story is show something in-line with your premise.
It is not based solely on that one verse. It is based upon the sum total of what Scripture says. God is both an "I" and a "We", and "He" and a "They", because the Father is not the Son, but both the Father and Son are God (the same God, not multiple Gods).
If God is an us our as you say, then the Bible should say God is a "We, they, or them" but it never does. So your plural personal pronoun argument doesn't hold any water, lacks any support with additional examples, or descriptions.
It doesn't matter that there are not other examples of "We", "They" or "Them" in Scripture. As you have already admitted, each and every word used in Scripture is important, meaningful, and must be considered when formulating any doctrine. If God is called an "Us" even one time, then there is a reason, a purpose behind that usage. We cannot just come in and change it to an "I", because we don't like the ramifications of what "Us" means.
Why? Because your foundation is off. You are sitting the entire Bible on top of one badly-translated, which is John 1:1, and attempting to orbit the entire Bible around it.
You keep saying that John 1:1 is "badly translated", yet you have not ever shown how it is "badly translated". In what way is it "badly translated"? In what way is the original Greek text corrupted when brought into English? Or is it that you have some "secret" original Greek text that demonstrates something different than all of the other Greek manuscripts in existence?
