Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

christ_undivided said:
The details of his position has changed significantly over the years. He would need to settle on an accurate defense of his position before he could ever accomplish such.
Click to expand...

There is a partial truth here.

The textual elements have come to play in the last few months and will likely be a good portion of writings that are planned.
By the grace of the Lord Jesus. .
 
Steven Avery said:
Can you link to these supposed conversations on Alexandrinus?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

You don't know me by this "name" here. God has the record. I don't care to feed your delusion. What I said was true. You know little of Alexandrinus and you don't care to know. You believe you've finally settled on that all elusive defense of the KJV you've been fabricating all these years.
 
Steven Avery said:
There is a partial truth here.

The textual elements have come to play in the last few months and will likely be a good portion of writings that are planned.
By the grace of the Lord Jesus. .
Click to expand...

You haven't "gotten there" yet.

You once denied change. Now you embrace the fact.

Truth changes us. It is why I abandoned KJVOism over 30 years ago. Your "king" isn't worth following. He corrupted his "authorized" version.

Did you know that Codex Alexandrinus was intended as a gift to James... If only he had been alive. It might have changed his life. You must realize that the information available to the student of the Scriptures is vast and time consuming. All you've ever really done is listen to others that have limited you in knowing that information. You always carry your conclusion with you no matter where you seek Truth. This life is full of abandonment. First, you must be willing to abandon your position to embrace the Truth. You have never accomplished this.

You should wait and reconsider.
 
christ_undivided said:
You don't know me by this "name" here. God has the record. I don't care to feed your delusion. What I said was true. You know little of Alexandrinus and you don't care to know. You believe you've finally settled on that all elusive defense of the KJV you've been fabricating all these years.
Click to expand...

Ok, hot air.
As expected.

christ_undivided said:
You once denied change.
Click to expand...

More hot air.
 
christ_undivided said:
I reject the conclusion that Sinaiticus is a century older. That is nothing more than an circumstantial estimate from various Scholars.

Alexandrinus is as older or older than Sinaiticus.
Click to expand...
I don't credit you conclusion without evidence, especially if its one that discredits the findings of scholars. An emotional attachment to Alexandrinus is not a good starting point. Arguably Sinaiticus was the first of the uncials, which is why it suffers from so many issues.

They refined them after that, and by making them smaller, saved a lot of expenditure.
 
Steven Avery said:
The oddball, mixed nature of Sinaiticus, OT and NT, with the scribal bumbling, is an argument against the 4th century theory.

(Hilgenfeld astutely used the scribal element in his argumentation.)

In the 1800s the textual scholar Benedict could much more easily use a mixed bag of sources.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Doesn't add up.

He was supposed to be correct-ing it (emphasis on "correct" in "correcting") wasn't he (according to the recensions of Kalliniko-ades' stories)?

Benedict, then, (according to the logic of Simonides), the supposedly innocent, saintly, unpretentious, honest old man, must have been the person who conceived the idea of deliberately pretending to be MULTIPLE personalities involved as incompetent (remember "blunderama") Scribes for the Tsar...

This does not fit the no intention to deceive scenario...

According to the Simon-ikos story, this was all planned...from the beginning...

Remember?

Printing press, beneficence etc...etc
 
Steven Avery said:
Fine by me, smart advice in dealing with your trick questions.
Click to expand...

The onus probandi is on you... remember... it's you who cries deception.

Don't blame us for your inability to prove or defend your theory...

These are honest questions. You took the project upon yourself...not us...you wanna be the big shot (self proclaimed champion of Simonides) then be prepared for a whole lot more questions ?
 
christ_undivided said:
You haven't "gotten there" yet.

You once denied change. Now you embrace the fact.

Truth changes us. It is why I abandoned KJVOism over 30 years ago. Your "king" isn't worth following. He corrupted his "authorized" version.

Did you know that Codex Alexandrinus was intended as a gift to James... If only he had been alive. It might have changed his life. You must realize that the information available to the student of the Scriptures is vast and time consuming. All you've ever really done is listen to others that have limited you in knowing that information. You always carry your conclusion with you no matter where you seek Truth. This life is full of abandonment. First, you must be willing to abandon your position to embrace the Truth. You have never accomplished this.

You should wait and reconsider.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
Steven Avery said:
The oddball, mixed nature of Sinaiticus, OT and NT, with the scribal bumbling, is an argument against the 4th century theory.

(Hilgenfeld astutely used the scribal element in his argumentation.)

In the 1800s the textual scholar Benedict could much more easily use a mixed bag of sources.
Click to expand...
That is not true at all. No one could make up Sinaiticus text. Its ancestors perished long ago and Sinaiticus New Testament Text was never copied. Only corrected by many different scribes, recognizing its initial cost. Something simionides could never come up with. The mere cost of the animal skins. Simionides had no part in Codex Sinaiticus except to tell lies about. If he tells lies about it, what do you do?
 
Steven Avery said:
You likely mean imply, not infer.
Click to expand...
You'll never cease the "let me correct that somebody didn't get wrong so I can distract them", will you?


Synonyms For Imply Per Merriam Webster
infer

Infer - Synonyms

2
as in to imply
to convey an idea indirectly

Bear in mind that when it comes to beliving you or believing the dictionary when it comes to words, I will side with the dictionary every single time. Not that you will even admit being wrong here.

(Get ready -here comes a long explanation as to why what the dictionary says doesn't mean exactly what it says....)
 
christ_undivided said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here’s your reminder: there’s a reason he’s on internet boards but not presenting these findings before a symposium that would ask him all manner of questions of subjects he doesn’t know.

This is about ego stroking not truth. Hint: even HE doesn’t believe the tripe he posts here, he just likes the attention he gets. That’s why he pretends the moon landings were all faked.
 
cjab said:
I don't credit you conclusion without evidence, especially if its one that discredits the findings of scholars. An emotional attachment to Alexandrinus is not a good starting point. Arguably Sinaiticus was the first of the uncials, which is why it suffers from so many issues.

They refined them after that, and by making them smaller, saved a lot of expenditure.
Click to expand...
Don't mean to but in. but Codex Vaticanus is dated 325-350 AD, While Sinaiticus is thought to be a little older 350-375 AD.

Date/Scribe​

Dated paleographically to the fourth century. It can hardly be earlier, as the manuscript contains the Eusebian Canons from the first hand


NT Manuscripts - Uncials

www.skypoint.com
 
Steven Avery said:
The oddball, mixed nature of Sinaiticus, OT and NT, with the scribal bumbling, is an argument against the 4th century theory.

(Hilgenfeld astutely used the scribal element in his argumentation.)

In the 1800s the textual scholar Benedict could much more easily use a mixed bag of sources.
Click to expand...

Now we have Steven referring to the same work, by the same person, out of one corner of his mouth as "Scribal bumbling" and out of the other as "Simonades perfection" ?.

Does not compute!

No intention to deceive... remember o_O

Let's see how many more contradictions can Steven create for himself...
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
I don't credit you conclusion without evidence, especially if its one that discredits the findings of scholars. An emotional attachment to Alexandrinus is not a good starting point. Arguably Sinaiticus was the first of the uncials, which is why it suffers from so many issues.
Click to expand...

Yes. Arguably. I don't have an emotional attachment. I once rejected Alexandrinus. I changed my mind because of the evidence. Especially in the OT.

Do you really believe Sinaiticus is superior to Alexandrinus?

The argument between Byzantine and Western "text types" is largely fabricated nonsense. They didn't take entirely different paths in succession. Alexandrinus is a perfect example of this. Alexandrinus shouldn't be classified as a lesser work simply because it contains both "text types". I rejected that argument many years ago.

cjab said:
They refined them after that, and by making them smaller, saved a lot of expenditure.
Click to expand...

Every single extant collection has issues. I don't feel it necessary to confine various works "neatly" into historical classifications. I haven't wrote about this but I have long held this position for a long time now. If you would like to discuss, I would welcome the conversation.
 
Conan said:
Don't mean to but in. but Codex Vaticanus is dated 325-350 AD, While Sinaiticus is thought to be a little older 350-375 AD.

Date/Scribe​

Dated paleographically to the fourth century. It can hardly be earlier, as the manuscript contains the Eusebian Canons from the first hand


NT Manuscripts - Uncials

www.skypoint.com
Click to expand...
In my "book".....Vaticanus is a close second to Alexandrinus. All of them are worthy of consideration.

Added....

I reject the idea that "earlier is always better". When you have various extant witness from relative the same "era", it is difficult to determine what "begat" what. A broader witness from various sources carries a more "weighty" witness to me.
 
Remember, Simonades and Benedict were giving the correct text with 1 John 5:7-8...

Remember...the whole years and years preparing and....???????...correct-ing the text ? pretending to be correct-ors (the overwriting, Scribe A, B, C = all Simonades'/Benedict's work)...seen in the Codex today ☝️
 
christ_undivided said:
In my "book".....Vaticanus is a close second to Alexandrinus. All of them are worthy of consideration.

Added....

I reject the idea that "earlier is always better". When you have various extant witness from relative the same "era", it is difficult to determine what "begat" what. A broader witness from various sources carries a more "weighty" witness to me.
Click to expand...
Earlier is definitely not better. Only in theory. It seems it is true that all significant textual variants were in existence 2nd century AD. They show up in later manuscripts.
 
Conan said:
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.
Click to expand...

On this thread we have the Tischendorf attack on Maximo in Hermas, and the Jude 1:3 and Revelation 17:4 Sinaiticus conflations in which one component of the conflations consists of only late minuscules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top