It will be demonstrated that I did not, in fact, make any error at all, but Steven Avery Spencer once again simply doesn't know what he's talking about. You'd think that somebody so sure of everyone else's errors would ensure he understood the subject BEFORE he said something incorrect. But you'd be wrong.
Horne's first edition was in 1821. Even then, his "advocacy" of this passage hardly reaches the absurd lengths of the KJVOs. What Horne was doing was (wait for it) what ACTUAL SCHOLARS do. He was weighing the arguments on both sides of the issue and in both cases, he is objecting to what are obvious problems with saying such nonsense.
And the proof that what I am saying is correct is in the difference between the 1821 edition, where he seems to come out in favor of it, and the 1869 edition where he comes out against it.
1821 edition (choose page 561 of 720)
1) The connexion of the disputed clause requires its insertion, inasmuch as the sense is not perfect without it.
2) The grammatical structure of the original Greek requires the insertion of the seventh verse, and consequently that it should be received as genuine.
Otherwise the latter part of the eighth verse, the authenticity of which was never questioned, (as indeed it cannot be, being found in every known manuscript that is extant,) must likewise be rejected
Now compare with the 1869 edition I cited (on page 415 of 844)
1) The connexion of the disputed clause requires its insertion, inasmuch as the sense is not perfect without it.
'This argument is rebutted by the fact that the context admits of an exposition, which makes the sense complete WITHOUT the disputed clause.
Avery IS correct about ONE thing: he's correct that this is listed under the authenticity arguments for 1 John 5:7. But then notice starting with the very first point - in EVERY case, he cites the claim and the smaller print UNDER the claim is a REBUTTAL to that claim, just as I used it in my thesis