The Trinity lacks any Biblical support

[mikesw]

I reject the translation 'only begotten God' because God was not begotten in any way, form or fashion.
It is senseless to argue over the ambiguity of a verse because of a textual variant.

Since you agree with the translation 'only begotten God' the maybe you can explain: Aseity is an attribute of God meaning He is self-existent - he has the property by which he exists of and from himself. God doesn't depend on any cause other than himself for his existence, realization, or end. THEREFORE - How was God begotten? Who begot God?

Also - How was God in the bosom of the Father aka God? God is the Father right? Was God in the bosom of God, i.e. himself?

Wouldn't the verse then carry the meaning:
No man has seen God at any, the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of God, God has declared God? If not, maybe you can explain its meaning?

We can also see Jesus, being God incarnate, is called the Son on God and also can be called the only Son through the birth of the incarnate Christ by Mary. That idea can even roughly work with the wording "only begotten God" but with a bit of awkwardness. However, the idea of "begotten" seems to have been added mistakenly in the translation of the Greek.

The repeat of the word theos naturally results from a lack of alternative words to work between God in multiple "persons" and God narrowly as Father. I can see how a hyperliteralist would be unable to grasp the deity of Christ due to the existence of a single word "theos."