Steven Avery

Hi David701, Definitely. There are many evidences unto proof that the verse of the heavenly witnesses is genuine Scripture. 100%+ However, the defenders of the verse have often allowed the discussion to go off on mistaken rabbit trails. While John Gill is normally reliable, and makes good points in his section on the verse, his support of the theory/interpretation that Stephanus had 9 Greek mss. with the verse was an error. And it was known to be wrong at the time he wrote, Lucas Brugensis had started to clear it up c. 1580. It is a bit of an involved topic, I try to help unravel it here: PBF - heavenly witnesses the Stephanus manuscript question - crochet, semi-circles https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-stephanus-manuscript-question-crochet-semi-circles.80/ Steven Avery

The nine (or ten) Greek manuscripts are what we have extant today, they were not in the hands of the learned men of the AV. They did know the massive historical Latin manuscript evidence for the verse. And how dozens of Latin commentators discussed the verse in detail over the centuries. And how it fits perfectly in the text as Johannine scripture.

Jerome strongly supported the verse, see what he wrote in the Vulgate Prologue. Modern scholars try to pretend that the Prologue was written by somebody other than Jerome. This is in the earliest extant Vulgate manuscript, Codex Fuldensis, and the arguments against Jerome's authorship are extremely weak.

Erasmus placed the heavenly witnesses in the 3rd edition of 1522, not the second of 1519. Erasmus also utilized the verse earlier in a work Ratio vera Theologie in 1518 and in his Paraphrase edition of the Epistles of John in 1521.

Thank you. Yes, the mod did not like your tone, fair enough, however you make a number of superb points, neatly condensed. The only overstatement is the ambiguous statement about who "recanted". Surely not all the scientists, Barry Schwartz however does come to mind. It would be better to simply say they flipped positions, recanting implies that they felt they had done something wrong. And I was for a long time mildly sympathetic to the Shroud, abound 2016 I saw Russ Breault at a conference and that really helped move me to a positive viewpoint. The evangelicals like to dismiss this as a RCC relic, but really the RCC came to the shroud guestion very late in the day. Read the history. btw, I am also supportive of the Ron Wyatt archaeology. And try to correlate the blood analysis issues that can support the virgin birth (on the Shroud this goes back to a paper in Italy, I believe untranslated.) No interest in veneration, however very interesting for Christian Bible historical apologetics! Also science.