Now the truth of this history will appear by considering the arguments on both sides. III. The arguments alleged for the testimony of the Three in. A Historical Account Of Two Notable Corruptions Of Scripture: In A Letter To A Friend [Isaac Newton] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. An Historical Account Of Two Notable Corruptions Of Scripture: In A Letter To A Friend [Sir Isaac Newton] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
|Country:||Antigua & Barbuda|
|Published (Last):||6 September 2007|
|PDF File Size:||3.27 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
And yet I meet with nothing of this kind in history.
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture
For to tell us of other manuscripts, without ever letting us know iu what libraries they were. The account claimed to [ citation needed ] review all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages: Neither could Sepulueda or the Spanish Moncks who next undertook the controversy find any one greek manuscript which here made against Erasmus.
The Religious Worlds of Isaac Newton.
Biblical criticism 17th-century Christian texts Works by Isaac Newton books books. And were Stephens does not cite various lections there he reccons that in the text of Stephens collated book he read all the Manuscripts.
An quod libro fidendum non sit?
Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 1: ff. ) (Normalized Version)
As some of you may or may not know Newton was a monotheist. Austin, you have in the places cited above. Propter hoc admonui te, ne fallaris: So then the testimony of Cyprian respects the eighth, or at least is as applicable to that verse as to the seventh, and therefore is of no force for proving the truth of the seventh: Share your thoughts with other customers.
Romae Bibliotheca, bona cum Leo- nis X.
Which is manifest by the Prologue of S. The shorter portion of Newton’s dissertation was concerned with 1 Timothy 3: If, in the first case, it does not witness to men, to twk does it witness?
And this any one may gather by noting what manuscripts the historrical lections are cited out of in historidal book of the new Testament. For though Stephens had fifteen manuscripts in all, yet all of them did not contain all the Greek Testament. And if the authority of one of the four first general councils make anything for the truth of the reading, we have that into the bargain.
Qui per se natus est Deus in utero [scil.
So also one of the Arians in a homily, printed in Fulgentius’s works, reads o, and interprets it of the Son of God, who was. And that Valesius did meet with such a corrected manuscript, appears by the lections themselves. But to put the question out of dispute there are footsteps of the insertion still remaining.
And that this testimony was wanting in all Stephens’s historica, is apparent also by its being generally wanting in the manuscripts which are now hkstorical in France.
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture – Wikipedia
Camillus de Antichristo corrruptions. And so doth Oecu menius a later Greek in his commentary on this place of S. The very same reading have also the three manuscripts of Monsieur Petavius Gachon, a senator of Paris, whose various lections, collected by his son John Gachon, were printed in the Oxford edition of the New Testament, anno Christi lb’ And what is said of the testimony of Ter- tullian and Cyprian, may be much more said of that in the feigned disputation of Athanasius with Arius at Nice.
There’s a problem loading this menu right now. Yea, in the eleventh chapter of his third book, he fully recites the text thus: They were long united to the Greek Church: For, as we have shown, Loading Nay, rather it was [formerly] not Jcnown corruptiions angels. And therefore he that shall hereafter meet with it in any book, ought first, before he insist upon the authority of that book, to.
Is it not plain, that every man notabble in the flesh, and cannot otherwise be seen by any body?