Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

Steven Avery said:
Jacob Peterson never gave any proofs, and I believe he deleted some forum discussions.

The issue is clear, his "demonstrably untrue" claim was never demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy mongering again.

We seriously doubt that you're intelligent enough to grasp what he was actually talking about.

No one would let you anywhere near a precious manuscript, let alone their flowers to take photos. You'd be like a bull in a china shop.
 
Steven Avery said:
If you think Jacob Peterson actually showed his "demonstrably untrue" claim, simply give his demonstration.
Click to expand...

Answered already. See below.

Conan said:
It was demonstrated. Your denials do not change reality, no matter how many times you pretend.
Click to expand...

The real question is, who really knows what they're talking about, and who's pretending to know what they're talking about when it comes to ancient manuscript photography and handling.

Answer = Jacob Peterson is not a pretender, who really knows what he is doing and talking about.

Answer = you're a faker through and through. A pretentious, condescending pretender.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Answered already. See below.
The real question is, who really knows what they're talking about, and who's pretending to know what they're talking about when it comes to ancient manuscript photography and handling.
Answer = Jacob Peterson is not a pretender, who really knows what he is doing and talking about.
Answer = you're a faker through and through. A pretentious, condescending pretender.
Click to expand...

Lots of fluff and puff, no demonstration.

You got duped.
 
Was Jacob Peterson calling Gavin Moorhead a liar?

Jacob Peterson
"the leaves in Leipzig .... It is demonstrably untrue that those leaves are drastically different from those in London."

Gavin Moorhead
"the Leipzig folios are notable for their whiteness." -

Or do you want to word-parse between notable and drastically different?
Making the Jacob Peterson claim worthless.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Was Jacob Peterson calling Gavin Moorhead a liar?

Jacob Peterson
"the leaves in Leipzig .... It is demonstrably untrue that those leaves are drastically different from those in London."

Gavin Moorhead
"the Leipzig folios are notable for their whiteness." -

Or do you want to word-parse between notable and drastically different?
Making the Jacob Peterson claim worthless.
Click to expand...

Dot dot dot.

= Contextomy!

You're incorrigible.
 
Steven Avery said:
The "demonstrably untrue" quote was from Jacob Peterson.

Apparently, it was just a fabrication, since it was never demonstrated.

Why would I seek to un-demonstrate something that was never demonstrated??
Click to expand...

You haven't demonstrated your manuscript photography skills and experience which demonstrate his claim to be demonstrably untrue.

Therefore you can't prove your counterargument.

What I said before:

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
The real question is, who really knows what they're talking about, and who's pretending to know what they're talking about when it comes to ancient manuscript photography and handling.

Answer = Jacob Peterson is not a pretender, who really knows what he is doing and talking about.

Answer = you're a faker through and through. A pretentious, condescending pretender.
Click to expand...

Is therefore true and correct.

You ARE a pretender and a fake.

When it comes to huff and puff, you ARE the worst of them all.

You're wayyyyy out of your league on this one.

Your reputation for charlatanism (you ARE NO ancient manuscript photography expert) will go down in history. That's what you'll be remembered for, i.e. being the second biggest bluff and pretender (after Simonides himself, although Simonides could actually read Greek and had handled and compared ancient
manuscripts in real life, unlike you) in history.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Dot dot dot.
= Contextomy!
You're incorrigible.
Click to expand...

Why not answer the question?
(Your second post is more blah-blah.)

Was Jacob Peterson calling Gavin Moorhead a liar?
Is TNC calling Gavin Moorhead a liar?

Jacob Peterson
"the leaves in Leipzig .... It is demonstrably untrue that those leaves are drastically different from those in London."

Gavin Moorhead
"the Leipzig folios are notable for their whiteness." -

Or do you want to word-parse between notable and drastically different?
Making the Jacob Peterson claim worthless.

Gavin Moorhead saw both major sections of the manuscript.
What did Jacob Peterson actually see?

Was Jacob Peterson a tool and fool for the textual criticism establishment that desparately needs Sinaiticus?
Consider his connection to Daniel Wallace, #1 promoter of the Vaticanus-Sinaiticus primacy corruption text.

Oops, Jacob Peterson turns out to be the charlatan.
That is why you try to give his bluster support.

Nonetheless, here or somewhere he can try to demonstrate what he says is “demonstrably untrue”.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top