Steven Avery
Well-known member
.Your making up stuff to …
Did Simonides get into the Sinaiticus manuscript and make up the many variants that show that Sinaiticus is a late manuscript?
.Your making up stuff to …
How about answering why a "late" manuscript copied as a gift (brand-spanking new in the 19th century) would have 23000 variants to begin with? Hmmm?Did Simonides get into the Sinaiticus manuscript and make up the many variants that show that Sinaiticus is a late manuscript?
Conspiracy theory built on conspiracy theory.
Funny how the text suddenly "aged." What sort of miracle brought that on?
They don't have the presupposition that the Sinaiticus is not a 4th century manuscript...
You infer that it "suddenly" aged, otherwise, how come it looks aged?Please be specific, who said the text suddenly aged.
Sinaiticus has the appearance of a 4th century manuscript. Some have said it looks even older. This you decline to account for. If as Simonides said, there was no "attempt at deception" - how come it is so "deceiving"?Thanks!
I am not playing your game (i.e. contributing to your conspiracy). If you want to challenge the dating of the scholars, submit a scholarly article for publication and get it accepted by them. At least make a serious point that isn't based in idle conjecture.You are seeing many textual examples that demonstrate a late manuscript.
Conspiracy theory?
Did Simonides tamper with the Sinaiticus text to create the non-ancient variants?
Here is a challenge. Take the feature of conflation with a late minuscule variant, find one similar example in any of the other “great uncials.”
Similar challenge finding a corrector’s text that shows a close affinity to a manuscript.
Thanks!
You infer that it "suddenly" aged, otherwise, how come it looks aged?
I am not playing your game (i.e. contributing to your conspiracy). If you want to challenge the dating of the scholars, submit a scholarly article for publication and get it accepted by them. At least make a serious point that isn't based in idle conjecture.
I am referring to your Simonides school of hubris, which you endorse, and as to which you let others endorse you in return:You likely mean imply, not infer.
So, what did I actually write?
As I cannot respond to a chimera.
I am not playing your game (i.e. contributing to your conspiracy).
Sinaiticus has the appearance of a 4th century manuscript. Some have said it looks even older. This you decline to account for. If as Simonides said, there was no "attempt at deception" - how come it is so "deceiving"?
By anyone's estimation, there must have been a preconcerted attempt at deception if the Codex is not genuine. It is indeed Simonides own testimony that exposes his own lies. He said "there was no attempt to deceive." It could only have been so. He just couldn't stop lying. So he was caught out by his own lies.
There is no textual evidence to show that "Sinaiticus to be long after current dating?" You simply are pretending. Not one shred of evidence have you given. You are pretending.Are you bowing out of your attempts to answer the textual evidences that show Sinaiticus to be long after the current dating?
Sometimes you dig up good info, like the textual affinity in 2 Peter of Codex Athous Lavrensis and Sinaiticus.
Textual Presuppositions.
Individual textual affinities don't prove anything of themselves. I suspect one day someone with analyse all the variants using a computer program and draw conclusions.Are you bowing out of your attempts to answer the textual evidences that show Sinaiticus to be long after the current dating?
Sometimes you dig up good info, like the textual affinity in 2 Peter of Codex Athous Lavrensis and Sinaiticus.
I'm not familiar with that slang. What I'm saying is that if Simonides was honest, he would have conceded an attempt to deceive with respect to Siniaticus. That he doesn't even do that shows that he can be ignored as to everything else re Siniaticus. His argument is too inconsistent to be credible, and obviously designed only to show Tischendorf up as a fool. Hypothetically, "if" Sinaiticus wasn't antique, it would have to be the work of a school of professional forgers, i.e. a large scale criminal enterprise: this is what you'll need to prove if you are to maintain your contentions.So if you say Simonides was lying and there was an attempt to deceive rather than create a replica (a point David mentions in his second book and I have always considered possible) you are acknowledging that Sinaiticus was produced at Mt. Athos c. AD 1840 (with an attempt to pass it off as truly ancient.)
Your argument reduces again to “orange man bad.”
You fail to present sound, verifiable, compelling evidence that would have actually compelled you.I switched only as compelled by the evidence.
If you read David Daniels's 2 books on Sinaiticus, you'll see why all the fuss.Avery is focusing on Codex Sinaiticus because he believes that is one area he can find "mud" to throw at others. I have never tried to support Codex Sinaiticus. It is not the best example of an early Christian Bible to be found.
Codex Alexandrinus is. It is a priceless example of an early Byzantine text. It is the single greatest extant witness to the OT. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles.
So my question is.... who really cares about Codex Sinaiticus? Avery actually loves it because he uses it to preach his false doctrine of KJV exceptionalism.