Talk:An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the biblical criticism work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in England may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]