Talk:An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture

Cleanup
This entire article is unsourced and should be cleaned up. In addition, the section headed "summary of both passages" is particularly casual in tone. Joshua Friel 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, Josh. (Five years later :)) Factually, the 1 John 5:7 section was much stronger than the 1 Timothy 3:16 section, which was designed to support POV. I cleaned up a few errors and questionable statements in the Timothy section. I agree that the article could use a lot of improvement. On the Comma Johanneum page, there is a section "Other disputed New Testament passages". Probably 1 Timothy 3:16 would best have its own page, separate from the "Notable Corruption" page.  That way the Newton page can focus on his position and contribution and historical place, without too much concern about the verse apologetics being the focus.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ximenes did not claim a late Greek manuscript
"He argued[5] that it was first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Ximenes on the strength of a late Greek manuscript 'corrected' from the Latin."

The latter part of this "on the strength.." is not in the Newton text which you can see here. https://books.google.com/books?id=mQ4JOuiEMWoC&pg=PA35

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers
About Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers: I'm afraid that Newton commented mostly about the time before the Church Fathers. From the BBC documentary Newton, the Dark Heretic I have learned that Newton considered that Church Fathers were alike to murderers. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)