By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!Ah, if we only had the autographs. If the comma was something taught in the earliest of ekklesias, and yet was lost by scribal error in later transcriptions, well, ... it's all speculation of course. I try to imagine what the autographs said, but it's a road that leads nowhere. I still believe wholeheartedly in the trinity. And I still disagree with the KJ translators on use of the words "church" and "Easter". The pericope adulterae is another matter altogether.Here is part of the introduction:
Since the discourses of some late writers have raised in you a curiosity of knowing the truth of that text of Scripture concerning the testimony of the Three in Heaven, 1 John v. 7, I have here sent you an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and by what steps it has been changed, so far as I can hitherto determine by records. And I have done it the more freely, because to you, who understand the many abuses which they of the Roman church have put upon the world, it will scarce be ungrateful to be convinced of one more than is commonly believed. For although the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge, yet the generality are fond of the place for its making against heresy. But whilst we exclaim against the pious frauds of the Roman church, and make it a part of our religion to detect and renounce all things of that kind, we must acknowledge it a greater crime in us to favour such practices, than in the Papists we so much blame on that account: for they act according to their religion, but we contrary to ours. In the Eastern nations, and for a long time in the Western, the faith subsisted without this text; and it is rather a danger to religion, than an advantage, to make it now lean upon a bruised reed. There cannot be better service done to the truth, than to purge it of things spurious: and therefore knowing your prudence, and calmness of temper, I am confident I shall not offend you by telling you my mind plainly; especially since it is no article of faith, no point of discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text of Scripture which I am going to write about.
I have not read it but, reading some things about it.. i came to my own independent conclusion a few years ago: that the Holy Spirit is the OT "Spirit of God"Has anyone read this? I am now.