The "milieu" doesn't prove anything.You have been corrected on the scholarship milieu before, You give no sources so you write whatever is convenient.
Simonides was not learning uncial script, and there is no evidence Benedict even knew it or Montfucon. At 106 years old, Benedict was not teaching anything to Simonides.Plus, you take too literally the boast about the teenage Simonides level of involvement in developing the text. He was learning from the ultra-skilled Benedict, who would know Montfucon and other sources,
I will not read Daniels.You should read David’s section in Faked.
Up to you.I may put together a montage of scholars and academies, starting with the world-class Eugenius Voulgaris.
. At 106 years old, Benedict was not teaching anything to Simonides.
I will not read Daniels.
You have been corrected on the scholarship milieu before,
You give no sources so you write whatever is convenient.
Plus, you take too literally the boast about the teenage Simonides level of involvement in developing the text.
He was learning from the ultra-skilled Benedict, who would know Montfucon and other sources,
You should read David’s section in Faked.
I may put together a montage of scholars and academies, starting with the world-class Eugenius Voulgaris.
Any response?
If you do not have any such details, just say so.
No harm, no foul.
The purpose here should be scholarship, not posturing.
translation - “I insist on ignorance”
David Daniels either lied in front of the Dean Burgon Society about your Trinity position or he was ignorant of it.
Not knowing the heretical theological of your "researcher" kinda makes anything David Daniels would say pretty suspect in fundy circles.
Answered on your reactive dribble and drivel thread.
More convolution in the Simonides mythology.
This is not "scholarship", this is abusive nonsense.
The guy whom I've corrected on his:
- poor German (which he cannot read)
- poor Greek (which he cannot read)
- poor French (which he cannot read)
translation - “I insist on ignorance”
Incorrect or false assumption and assertion.translation - “I insist on ignorance”
I have read several of David Daniels' book, and he fails to prove his KJV-only claims to be true and scriptural. He is unreliable as a source.Incorrect or false assumption and assertion.
Translation: it is more merciful to Daniels not to pay him for his delerious fables & fantasies, as:translation - “I insist on ignorance”
Translation: it is more merciful to Daniels not to pay him for his delerious fables & fantasies, …”The labor of the righteous leads to life, The wages of the wicked to sin."
From Elijah Hixon:David’s labour is holy, sanctified and most excellent.
And in our Sinaiticus studies his books allow me again and again to refute contra errors.
Errors of ignorance.
Hebrews 6:10 (AV)
For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love,
which ye have shewed toward his name,
in that ye have ministered to the saints,
and do minister.
Here is the verse you erratically tried to sling, this time from the pure Bible:
Proverbs 10:16 (AV)
The labour of the righteous tendeth to life:
the fruit of the wicked to sin.
From Elijah Hixon:
"In summary, David Daniels demonstrates over and over again that he is agenda-driven by a desire to undermine any opposition to the KJV, he cherry-picks references that he can twist in his favour without giving the full context (or without reporting information from the same works that he cites elsewhere that could undermine his point), and he has effectively zero experience with real manuscripts. I cannot recommend this book to anyone.""That being said, I cannot recommend his book on Codex Sinaiticus to anyone. That is not because I’m opposed to finding out manuscripts are fakes. ...... No, the problem with Daniels’ book is that it is built on one-sided reporting, conspiracy theories and a desire to defend the King James Version at all costs rather than the careful analysis, experience with manuscripts and expertise that normally leads to the identification of forgeries."
And that’s really all this is about, isn’t it?
This isn’t about research, this isn’t about truth. This is about you, for whatever reason soothing some portion of your soul that never accomplished enough to make your parents happy with you, but you somehow think proving someone else is wrong about something proves you right. You seem to get some sort of jollies out of this, some sort of smug self-satisfaction that you found out someone else was wrong, and you can’t wait to tell your story to the world about how wrong someone else is and you’re right. But in the end, you are serving the law of diminishing returns, because since you’re a human being as well, it isn’t going to take very long for someone to demonstrate you fouled up, too.
You do not actually practice what you preach. You do not deal with or touch properly on all the major problems with your human, inconsistent, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning and with your radical oneness view.And I responded to his "Review" that did not touch properly on any major points.