I agree that Jesus was the logos of John 1:1 and I agree he was the "begotten God' of John 1:18.The "begotten God" is the Son, the Logos of John 1:1, which is made clear in the context of John 1:1, and the following:
The difficulty lies in the concept that the is a "Begotten God" AND an "unbegotten God". If the Father is an unbegotten God and the son is a begotten God, are they the same as in the later version of the trinity or are they different as in the more ancient version of the trinity?
And I was merely pointing out that Harts translation is in error. The greek μονογενησ does not mean the "only one" but it is one of a class. Hart, for some reason overrides the original greek but he doesn't explain why he changes the text in his english paraphrasing.1:14 – "And the Logos became flesh and pitched a tent among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the Father's only one (μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός), full of grace and truth."
While many Christian movements have created different bibles with translations to better fit their theology, my question is why Hart would purposely change the Greek Text and offer an erroneous translation of John 1:14. I assume that Hart, like other Christians wanted the text to better suit his theology.There are multiple sources readily available as to why Hart chose to offer a translation of the New Testament.