The problem with that article is that they are seeing LOGOS outside of John's meaning. John was writing in a Hellenistic world where Greek philosophy was the norm. The logos was a familiar term meaning (to the populace) the non-personal Principle that made the world (viz. the view of Plato and other philosophers). Thus, a meager impersonal concept. However, John now presents a different meaning: the Word possesses personal attributes. No one can seriously read the prologue of John and get the idea that the Word who was the Light of all men, the only begotten of the Father, the Creator of all things, and to whom personal pronouns are applied, was only a concept.

Love,
Madeline