Who is lying in John 1:18:
Is it “begotten God” or “Begotten Son”?

This article in Portuguese

The King James Bible, being the faithful, accurate and exact translation of the Textus Receptus, correctly as always, renders John 1:18 as “begotten Son”. Some irresponsible defenders of the modern perversions of the Bible (NIV, NASB, RSV, GNB) insisting in their foolish, insane and lost battle against the Supreme Book, do not give up their ridiculous statements to justify their stubbornness, even if their arguments are a sign of nothing more than their religious fanaticism against God’s preserved words. The obvious conclusion of this passage at stake can be only one: Somebody is lying!

If the true rendering is “begotten God”, the Authorized Version, is not Word of God and all the others that have “begotten God” are. But, if the true rendering is “begotten Son”, the Authorized Version, is the Word of God and all the others that have “begotten God” are:

1. The word of the corrupt, liars and deceivers (2Co. 2:17);

2. The product of incompetent “scholars” and blind reprobates;

3. The product of people under the service of the devil as Westcott and Hort were;

4. The product of unreliable manuscripts that discredit all other modern Bibles!

No other option.

1. Manuscript Evidence

Out of the 5,300 (five thousand and three hundred) Greek manuscripts only the ones following bring the corruption of “only begotten God”: P66, P75, Aleph*, Aleph-1, Vaticanus, C*, and L. Unbelievable! Only a total of 7 (seven), out of the 5,300, bring this strange reading. That’s 0.1% of the evidence. How do you throw out 99.9% of the evidence to justify the corruption of “begotten God”? With the “help” of two King James Bible haters who also were spiritists, unbelievers, heretics, communists, idolaters, universalists, Romanists, sacerdotalists, racists and evolutionists called Westcott and Hort.

2. Historical Evidence

Now, these manuscripts came from the Egyptian city of Alexandria the cradle of the heretic Gnostics. Who were they? They were “scholars” who were contaminated with many heresies of this pagan city. Alexandria, Egypt, was one of the many cities named after Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. It was heavily influenced by the Greek thought and as a consequence, Plato’s false philosophies were highly regarded. Christianity reached Alexandria early in the first century and the right doctrines were soon corrupted by those Gnostic heretics who wanted to accommodate the Bible with this Greek philosophy. The heresy of denying the divinity of Christ by Arius (256 – 336 AD) was from there. Origen (185-254 AD), the most famous heretic of the 3rd century, was from there. Those people tampered with the Scriptures and corrupted some copies of it. Would you trust a manuscript copied from this place at this time by these people? The “old uncials” (Greek words capitalized) and the corrupt papyri (P66, P75) referred to in item 1 above, were a mere product of these heretics. They are worthless! The moderns “scholars” just forget to tell us that the Textus Receptus was also in existence (of course, because they were copies of the originals) when the corrupt “older manuscripts” were produced. If we check the early versions, the Lectionaries and the “Father’s” quotations, we will see that. In fact, the rendering “only begotten God” is clearly a trademark of the early Egyptian manuscripts and a reflection of the classic beliefs of those heretics. Since they did not believe in the pre-existence of the Son, they did not believe in the divinity of the Son, or even in the incarnation of the Son, they subtlety changed the text as they could to fit their heresies! They believed in the doctrine of “intermediary gods”. Jesus Christ for them was not God, but an intermediary god with a small “g”. That’s why they substituted the word Son (huios) by the word god (theos). They did the opposite in 1Tim. 3:16 removing in that verse the word “God” (theos) and placing he (hos) instead. That’s why through the centuries, the true believers never copied those heretical manuscripts. For 1500 years they were kept where they belonged: they were thrown in the trash can until those unsaved haters of the AV decided to resuscitate them in 1881 in the dark and secret chambers of that wicked Committee full of unsaved hypocrites who not even believed in the inspiration of the originals!

3. Internal Evidence

3.1 The apostle John, who wrote his gospel as well four other books (1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation) never used the expression “begotten God”, but only “begotten Son” (Jo. 3:16, 3:18; 1Jo. 4:9).

3.2 Some people don’t even look at the verse itself! The most striking proof lies within the verse at stake! Who is in the Bosom of the Father (patros)? It is obvious that it is the Son (huios)! That’s the only and simple explanation. Only this evidence would be sufficient to settle the question! The relationship Father-Son is shown in the verse.

3.3. Only 4 verses before John had already explained that Jesus was begotten of the Father (1:14)

3.4 The writer of Hebrews (very strong evidences for the apostle Paul) used the word begotten only three times (Heb. 1:5; 5:5 11:7). The two first times it clearly refers to The Son. The third one refers to Isaac which is also a son!

3.5 No other New Testament writer used the expression “begotten God”

3.6 No where in the whole Bible, any writer ever used the expression “begotten God”.

4. Theological Evidence

The word “only begotten” (monogenes) when applied to Jesus Christ, speaks about the His incarnation! The Biblical teaching is just one the Son was begotten. Look in 1Jo. 5:1 how the expression of “Christ is born of God” is linked with the word “begotten of him”! The Son was begotten. That’s the whole unifying teaching about this issue. The dear verse which speaks about the incarnation is linked with the relationship Father-Son “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Jo. 1:14). God was not begotten, the Son was. Yes, Jesus Christ is God (Jo. 1:1; 1Tm 3:16), but to remove the Son from Jo. 1:18 is not correct theologically for there is no Biblical support. If somebody denies that the Son was begotten withdrawing him from the verse 18, he would weaken the doctrine of the divinity of Christ: That’s exactly what the Gnostics wanted, redefining “theos” (God) as “a god” (intermediary).


The Authorized Version, is the Word of God in English and all the others that have “begotten God” in John 1:18 are:

1. The word of the corrupt, liars and deceivers (2Co. 2:17);

2. The product of incompetent “scholars”;

3. The product of people under the service of the devil as Westcott and Hort;

4. The product of unreliable manuscripts that discredit all other modern Bibles based on them!

Facts , about the NIV:

2 members of the committee: 1 Virginia Mollenkott said “I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV…” (Virginia Mollenkott’s letter to Michael J. Penfold Dec. 18th 1996) 2 Dr. Marten Woudstra: Nothing less than the Old Testament commitee chief: Fact 1: He never got married (which as an isolated fact does not mean anything...) but; Fact 2: Removed all words "sodomite(s)" of the NIV Old Testament! Fact 3: Declared that the Bible does not condemn homosexualism! Fact 4: Was an intimate friend of a sodomite organization called Evangelicals Concerned Inc. and its sodomite founder Dr. Ralph Blair…

Everyone draw your own conclusions...

Fact: Word: "CONCUPISCENCE".    KJV:  3 times / NIV: ZERO

Word : "SODOMITE / SODOMITES". KJV:  5 times / NIV: ZERO

Word: "CARNAL / CARNALLY".  KJV:  14 times / NIV: ZERO

Word: "FORNICATOR (S) / FORNICATION (S)". KJV:  40 times / NIV: ZERO

Fact: Rupert Murdoch the owner of NIV, gave 10 million dollars to the new Catholic Cathedral in Los Angeles. He also is the owner of one the most wicked publishing companies and organizations including Direct TV with all the wicked things which go along with it, all this sponsored by naďve people that buy those corrupt Bibles…

Versőes Bíblicas