Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

Steven Avery said:
Jacob made a false statement about what was "demonstrably untrue". His own comments acknowledged the lightness of the Leipzig pages. Since Jacob never demonstrated what he claimed was "demonstrably untrue" there was nothing to refute. Logic 101. A bunch of conjectures about cleaning, storage, etc. without any actual evidence given does not amount to a demonstration.

And I call that a lie, because it was a deliberate false statement that became the central point for others, like Snapp. Perhaps he simply was not thinking clearly, he still could retract the statement.

Jacob also made an ignorant statement about physical condition not having importance in determining the age of a manuscript. He followed that with a wacky comment about good texts and bad texts. All that can be winked at since he is just a photographer, and likely got confused by the textual theories of Daniel Wallace. Still, it showed his weakness in the discussion.
Click to expand...
He is an expert at manuscript photography. He knows what he is talking about. You are a conspiracy theorist. If God told you Codex Sinaiticus was from the 4th, 5th century you would dispute it. Jacob has expertly explained the supposed color differences to everyone's satisfaction. There are no scholars or learned people on this planet that dispute that. Only the SART team, none of which are experts at anything. Don't you understand your doing nothing but disputing the Word of God and tarnishing it? Simply because Westcott and Hort chose the wrong readings? It's not the fault of Codex Sinaiticus because Hort chose the wrong readings. You are even more wrong than Hort in your madness.
 
Conan said:
He is an expert at manuscript photography. He knows what he is talking about.... Jacob has expertly explained the supposed color differences to everyone's satisfaction.
Click to expand...

See my post above. Obviously you do not know what he actually claimed falsely.
 
Steven Avery said:
Jacob made a false statement about what was "demonstrably untrue". His own comments acknowledged the lightness of the Leipzig pages. Since Jacob never demonstrated what he claimed was "demonstrably untrue" there was nothing to refute. Logic 101. A bunch of conjectures about cleaning, storage, etc. without any actual evidence given does not amount to a demonstration.

And I call that a lie, because it was a deliberate false statement that became the central point for others, like Snapp. Perhaps he simply was not thinking clearly, he still could retract the statement.

Jacob also made an ignorant statement about physical condition not having importance in determining the age of a manuscript. He followed that with a wacky comment about good texts and bad texts. All that can be winked at since he is just a photographer, and likely got confused by the textual theories of Daniel Wallace. Still, it showed his weakness in the discussion.
Click to expand...
For all your verbosity, you have demonstrably failed to prove that what he wrote is untrue:
​
"Regardless of which of these is true, it is demonstrably untrue that the leaves in Leipzig are the cool-grey color that is shown in the digital images. It is demonstrably untrue that those leaves are drastically different from those in London. The Leipzig leaves in actuality have a slight yellow tint that is exactly the same as, or very near to, the tint of some leaves in London."​
​
[source]​
​
The context of the conversation didn't require him to prove anything. He purported to be speaking from knowledge. You've yet to show otherwise.
 
Steven Avery said:
Jacob made a false statement about what was "demonstrably untrue". His own comments acknowledged the lightness of the Leipzig pages. Since Jacob never demonstrated what he claimed was "demonstrably untrue" there was nothing to refute. Logic 101. A bunch of conjectures about cleaning, storage, etc. without any actual evidence given does not amount to a demonstration.

And I call that a lie, because it was a deliberate false statement that became the central point for others, like Snapp. Perhaps he simply was not thinking clearly, he still could retract the statement.

Jacob also made an ignorant statement about physical condition not having importance in determining the age of a manuscript. He followed that with a wacky comment about good texts and bad texts. All that can be winked at since he is just a photographer, and likely got confused by the textual theories of Daniel Wallace. Still, it showed his weakness in the discussion.
Click to expand...


Imagine you get into a tour bus to drive through the high Andes passes, gravel roads, step ravines to your left and your right, and you ask the bus driver how much experience he's got in driving the bus, and he says "None"! And he he then says: "But I've read all about it on the internet"! Are you going to trust him to get to your destination safely? Trust him with your life?

That in effect folks, is what Steven Avery is saying to you... he can't read the Codex Sinaiticus, he's never seen the Codex Sinaiticus in real life (smelled, touched, been in the same room, etc), he's never been trained in Greek paleography, he's never touched a genuinely old peice of parchment in his life...

But he's read STUFF on the internet...

Buyer beware!
 
Last edited:
Conan said:
He is an expert at manuscript photography. He knows what he is talking about. You are a conspiracy theorist. If God told you Codex Sinaiticus was from the 4th, 5th century you would dispute it. Jacob has expertly explained the supposed color differences to everyone's satisfaction. There are no scholars or learned people on this planet that dispute that. Only the SART team, none of which are experts at anything. Don't you understand your doing nothing but disputing the Word of God and tarnishing it? Simply because Westcott and Hort chose the wrong readings? It's not the fault of Codex Sinaiticus because Hort chose the wrong readings. You are even more wrong than Hort in your madness.
Click to expand...

Don't forget these guys are so competent they called themselves EDITED BY MODERATOR

Go figure folks!

That's the competency level your dealing with (I kid you not!).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cjab said:
For all your verbosity, you have demonstrably failed to prove that what he wrote is untrue:
​
"Regardless of which of these is true, it is demonstrably untrue that the leaves in Leipzig are the cool-grey color that is shown in the digital images. It is demonstrably untrue that those leaves are drastically different from those in London. The Leipzig leaves in actuality have a slight yellow tint that is exactly the same as, or very near to, the tint of some leaves in London."​
​
[source]​
​
The context of the conversation didn't require him to prove anything. He purported to be speaking from knowledge. You've yet to show otherwise.
Click to expand...

So Jacob Peterson made a all-encompassing claim "demonstrably untrue" and offered no evidence.

There was nothing to refute, since he demonstrated nothing.
It is not my job to try to figure out what is in the recesses of his mind, and refute his "mental findings" (like Reagan.)
 
Steven Avery said:
So Jacob Peterson made a all-encompassing claim "demonstrably untrue" and offered no evidence.

There was nothing to refute, since he demonstrated nothing.
It is not my job to try to figure out what is in the recesses of his mind, and refute his "mental findings" (like Reagan.)
Click to expand...
He demonstrated that the slight color differences were because of differences of storage and lighting. They are not uncolored as you falsely maintain.
 
Conan said:
He demonstrated that the slight color differences were because of differences of storage and lighting. They are not uncolored as you falsely maintain.
Click to expand...

No, he gave no such demonstration, simply conjectures.

Nor did he demonstrate that the color differences were "slight".
He was trying to find a way to deal with the whiteness of the Leipzig pages.

What do I claim was uncolored? Definitely the Leipzig pages.

You did not quote any of his "demonstration", so we are wasting time.
 
Steven Avery said:
No, he gave no such demonstration, simply conjectures.

Nor did he demonstrate that the color differences were "slight".
He was trying to find a way to deal with the whiteness of the Leipzig pages.

What do I claim was uncolored? Definitely the Leipzig pages.

You did not quote any of his "demonstration", so we are wasting time.
Click to expand...

You mean you weren't convinced by his explanation.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
You mean you weren't convinced by his explanation.
Click to expand...

Jacob Peterson's explanation was vague and contradictory and short on facts, so nobody should have been "convinced" of his false claim.

Peterson was so confused that he even started talking about good and bad texts.

"Having handled scores of manuscripts now, I can attest to mss having great physical condition with terrible texts and mss in poor condition with excellent texts."
Click to expand...

That was a doozy.
Sounds like he was listening to Wallace talk about Westcott-Hort Alexandrian texts.

Along with:

"physical condition should play little part in dating a manuscript."
Click to expand...

A super-doozy.

A major part of trying to counter Simonides was to claim that the manuscript was in an ancient physical condition.

The Clerical Journal Oct 2, 1962 published in the Journal of Sacred Literature, April 1863
https://books.google.com/books?id=ybYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA490

The action of ink upon vellum is peculiar, slow, and gradual, and leads to results which can be measured by time. The action of light and air, and warmth, and moisture, are also remarkably uniform. -
Click to expand...

Similarly, the posters here are continually struggling to try to claim the physical condition supports Sinaiticus being old, despite its youthful, flexible, wonderful parchment, and a New Testament not even missing one word.

So if Peterson were right, how would you tell if a manuscript was old, if you leave out the physical condition?
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Jacob Peterson's explanation was vague and contradictory and short on facts, so nobody should have been "convinced" of his false claim.

Peterson was so confused that he even started talking about good and bad texts.



That was a doozy.
Sounds like he was listening to Wallace talk about Westcott-Hort Alexandrian texts.

Along with:



A super-doozy.

A major part of trying to counter Simonides was to claim that the manuscript was in an ancient physical condition.

The Clerical Journal Oct 2, 1962 published in the Journal of Sacred Literature, April 1863
https://books.google.com/books?id=ybYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA490
Click to expand...

Just like Bradshaw wasn't convinced by either Simonides' handwriting or story. ??
 
Steven Avery said:
Jacob Peterson's explanation was vague and contradictory and short on facts, so nobody should have been "convinced" of his false claim.

Peterson was so confused that he even started talking about good and bad texts.



That was a doozy.
Sounds like he was listening to Wallace talk about Westcott-Hort Alexandrian texts.

Along with:



A super-doozy.

A major part of trying to counter Simonides was to claim that the manuscript was in an ancient physical condition.

The Clerical Journal Oct 2, 1962 published in the Journal of Sacred Literature, April 1863
https://books.google.com/books?id=ybYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA490



Similarly, the posters here are continually struggling to try to claim the physical condition supports Sinaiticus being old, despite its youthful, flexible, wonderful parchment, and a New Testament not even missing one word.

So if Peterson were right, how would you tell if a manuscript was old, if you leave out the physical condition?
Click to expand...

NOTED: A disingenuous (dishonest) quotation from a journal that Mr Avery will disavow has anything to do with his personal opinion, his post, or his views, the moment anyone challenges him on it.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
NOTED: A disingenuous (dishonest) quotation from a journal that Mr Avery will disavow has anything to do with his personal opinion, his post, or his views, the moment anyone challenges him on it.
Click to expand...

It was an excellent quote, and I never disavowed the quote, and there was absolutely nothing dishonest in the quote. You are all over the map.

And it could have offered a wonderful, true argument against Simonides, if Sinaiticus were ancient. And it could be used against other writings from Simonides, like the Mayer papyri.

The problem was that the author did not know of the phenomenally good condition of the Sinaiticus manuscript.

He assumed that Tischendorf was telling him the palaeographic truth.
 
Steven Avery said:
So Jacob Peterson made a all-encompassing claim "demonstrably untrue" and offered no evidence.

There was nothing to refute, since he demonstrated nothing.
It is not my job to try to figure out what is in the recesses of his mind, and refute his "mental findings" (like Reagan.)
Click to expand...
He made out he was speaking from knowledge and that he had the proofs. You never asked him what they were (apparently). I suggest you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top