when did corruption text defenders argue that the grammar is unchanged even with the heavenly witnesses included

Steven Avery

Until recent days this was rarely claimed, since it is so clearly wrong. However, it might appear once or twice in the 1800s, perhaps in Oxlee or Turton.

This thread will look for such argumentation.


Here is one of the simpler explanations of why the heavenly witnesses included has no grammar difficulty.

Besides, it cannot be difficult to conceive, that the sacred writer, when about to express the earthly Witnesses in the next verse, might carry on the same expression, or adjuncts, to that verse: and the correspondence in the number of Witnesses, and the similarity of their design in bearing witness to the truth of the religion of Christ, may tend to confirm this sentiment. But if the former verse did not precede, and sh6uld be rejected as spurious, it will be hard to account for the use of the masculine gender *, ...