Steven Avery
Well-known member
Nothing about St. Catherine's.
Not even Sinai.
David is right, you are wrong.
Did you have reading difficulties?
Who Faked the World’s Oldest Bible?
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
Nothing about St. Catherine's.
Not even Sinai.
David is right, you are wrong.
Did you have reading difficulties?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
"SOLELY in Sinaiticus" was YOUR errant phrase, not David.
You tried to apply it, wrongly, to the two Jonathan Borland verses.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
It is a hybrid text.
E.g. Tobit has a section that is from Greek sources, and also sections from other languages.
That was possible in the 1800s with a wide variety of sources available.
It is not really explainable in the 4th century.
Also you have Sinaiticus correctors connected to specific medieval manuscripts.
There is no good explanation for that phenomenon except that the manuscripts were used to correct Sinaiticus.
Nope. No one could have made up that Text. It's Text goes back to the 1st, 2nd, probably 3rd centuries and definitely 4th century.
Throughout history later scribes corrected its text towards the Byzantine Text. Multiple scribes in ancient hands keep on and on making corrections to the Byzantine Text. Of course Byzantine manuscripts agree with medieval Greek manuscripts. They are Byzantine manuscripts, written by byzantine scribes. What is so hard to understand about that?
Last edited:
You have to keep in mind that Avery’s position on Sinaiticus calls into question the authenticity of every other biblical manuscript in existence.
Everything could have been copied or forged by hands centuries later than the officially accepted dates.
Everything.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
1) You would have to look at the specific variants and how the manuscript and correctors are connected.
2) Your theory would only even have a potential application for New Testament books, not the OT, apocrypha, or Hermas and Barnabas.
That would be the Byzantine Text. You know, 85-95% of all manuscripts.
Why? Did all those Byzantine revisors revise the Old Covenant/Apocrapha of Sinaiticus with a non-Byzantine Text?
I love it when a person who cannot even read the Greek NT for himself and has never even taken an elementary course in Textual Criticism can tell THOSE OF US WHO HAVE DONE THIS AND COLLATED ACTUAL MANUSCRIPTS how it works. I'm amazed anyone was able to ever do any work until this enlightened (by which I mean "ignorant") musing was posted online.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This is an example of Bill Brown simply making stuff up.
The PDF of the Memoir has been available online since early 2016, and David and I have looked it over beginning to end.
Nah, I've documented his misquotation just like I have yours.
It's amusing to watch you so quick to accuse OTHERS of what you love to do.
He just admitted they didn't read it.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
What misquptation?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Looks like you gave up trying to give words, in any language, where Tischenforf tells the world that the CFA came from St. Catherine’s, before 1859 (that was only private, public was much later.)
This is a good example of the worthlessness of your attempts at attacking David;s book. You repeat the same blunder accusation again and again and again, and still refuse correction.
Are you describing you yourself?
Have you accepted or refused correction of your erroneous, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
If you have a specific factual blunder that you think needs correction, simply quote me and give the correction.
Thanks!
Make sure it is something factual, like Bill Brown wrongly claiming that Tischendorf did in fact say where the CFA had come from before 1859. (Which blunder he then used to falsely accuse David Daniel's scholarship.)
His last name is Daniels, not Daniel.
It’s not the “scholarship” of Daniel, but the “scholarship” of Daniels.
Daniels’s “scholarship.”
Not Daniel’s “scholarship.”
This is elementary English grammar.
Let me guess, you’re iPad is to blame again.
Researcher, indeed.
Rather "Daniels' scholarship" as when a word's pronounciation ends in a "z" sound, no further s is required, as the resulting construct is unpronounceable. "Jesus's" is OK, because the 's can be pronounced as Jesus ends in an "s" sound.
......by analogy with plural possessives, which grammatically enforce ' for 's where the "s" ending also leads to the "z" sound in so many cases (notable exceptions including ps, is, us, as, os).
Steven Avery
Well-known member
True in a sense for good style, but not a rule.
Possessive Case of Nouns: Rules and Examples
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/possessive-case/
Possessive forms of singular nouns
The possessive case of most singular nouns, whether common or proper, is formed by adding –’s to the end. See the following examples:
..... This general rule usually applies even to names ending in s or z:
You’re sitting in Paz’s chair.
However, this is a matter of style, and some style guides call for leaving off the s after the apostrophe for a name ending in s or z. Neither choice is incorrect.
Where a vowel immediately precedes z, then it would fall under a category of exceptions where 's is OK. because the 's becomes pronounceable. There are exceptions to every rule...... The rule I identified was based on whether the 's can be pronounced easily. Most of the time it can't be with a <zzzzz> sound at the end.