This would be laughable if it wasn't so glaringly wrong. Do you even realize that you proof-texted that article, just like you do with Scripture? Did you actually read the entire thing thoroughly?
From the article:
"What is striking about John 1:18 is that the earliest texts we possess of John 1:18 all read the same: μονογενὴς θεὸς [God]. Yet, the vast majority of all texts say μονογενὴς υἱός [Son]. So here we have the earliest attested reading standing against most of the rest of the tradition."
"The earliest reading is “God,” and the majority reading from the fifth century onward is “Son.” So, which is best? People often say, “Earlier is not necessarily better,” which can sometimes be true. However, in general, the more primitive the reading, the heavier the weight of that witness. As we will see below, contextual testimony can also be brought to bear on this variant.
So, if we go with μονογενὴς θεὸς as the original reading, how do we translate this? We have already noted some of the attempts in modern English translations, and at this point, whether the article is present can likewise impact translation. We could opt for the formal equivalency translation, “the only begotten God,” and then attempt to explain this awkward phrase from the pulpit in preaching, and many would opt for this path. Likewise, we could render it “the unique God” and hope that the immediate context, “who is at the Father’s side” (literally, “in the Father’s bosom”), can help clarify what is meant by “unique.” The μονογενὴς θεὸς is the unique, personal means by which the Father has been revealed to mankind. If we wish to emphasize the meaning of monogenes, we can use “the only Son, who is God.” This would connect well with John 1:1, where the Logos (who is obviously in view in 1:18 as well) is said to be eternal (1:1a), in personal communion with the Father (1:1b), and, as to His nature, deity (1:1c).
The fact that 1:18 is the “bookend” to 1:1 should be remembered here and can assist in choosing which phrasing will most clearly communicate the original author’s intention for the reader to recognize the connection between 1:1 and 1:18. The “unique God” clearly represents the content of 1:1b and 1:1c, for only in the incarnation of the Logos can we have one who has eternally been in relationship with the Father and yet is, as to His essential nature, true deity. This is the “uniqueness” of the Incarnate one. Our language may struggle to express such sublime truths of revelation, but we must make the effort!"
"But as has been mentioned, in defence of μονογενὴς θεὸς, the perfection of the parallel it provides between 1:1 and 1:18 is very weighty. No one has seen God at any time, but the only Son, who is God or the unique God, has revealed that unseen God because He is at the Father’s side. Of course, the “side of” is too weak a translation. The phrase speaks of personal intimacy, which is why the μονογενὴς θεὸς can reveal the Father perfectly. But is this not the same reality seen in John 1:1b, where the Logos (who becomes incarnate in 1:14) is eternally “face to face” with the Father? Just as the Logos is, as to His nature and deity, in 1:1c and 1:18, He is God, even in revealing the unseen Father.
So, when we look at 1:18’s function in John, we can see that the text does not present a binary “either/or” situation.[10] It is not as if reading “Son” means the deity of Christ is absent, and reading “God” means it is present. It is present in both but with different expressions. However, the earliest reading of John’s manuscripts provides a stronger, more consistent parallel to what we find in John 1:1."
So, not only does the article absolutely not "provide source material showing you are factually wrong on the proper translation of John 1:18," James White prefers the reading of "God" in John 1:18. He repeatedly points out that John 1:1 points to the personhood and deity of the logos and that verse 18 simply reaffirms that, whether "God" is used or "Son" is.
As a suggestion, if you're going to post sources that show others are "factually wrong," make sure you actually thoroughly read your source. In this case, your source proves you wrong.
You have made the appeal to authority argument before, but it is evidence that you don't understand what that means. Please go look it up before using it again.
You clearly haven't understood the issue, even though it was clearly and well presented in your own source. There are at least two different variant readings of John 1:18, the older one which uses "God," and the more common but newer one that uses "Son."
Why do you argue so much against things that you clearly do not even understand and show no attempt at trying to understand?
