Codex Sinaiticus - the facts
- Thread starter cjab
- Start date
The "milieu" doesn't prove anything.
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.
I will not read Daniels.
Up to you.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Wisdom to have a thread to answer repeated contra blunders.
Benedict as 106 years old when he passed?
https://forums.carm.org/threads/benedict-as-106-years-old-when-he-passed.19201/
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
translation - “I insist on ignorance”
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)
- use of Donaldson as a modern argument (refuted, it's over)
....has the audacity to stand there completely oblivious to his own failures of scholarship and point fingers.
You do well to remember three are pointing back at you.
More tough guy behind the keyboard, but again this is some world class gaslighting since Avery does this in every post.
Are you seriously this lacking in self-awareness?
Let me translate: "You shouldn't actually be believing what Simonides said, what you should instead believe is those of us who came along years after the fact and concocted a theory that has zero evidence!"
The fact your brother was a professor at MIT doesn't mean you know ANYTHING about engineering so try again.
I've read both of his books, I needed a therapist afterwards to stop laughing.
It seems compiling lists a la Riplinger is pretty much your only contribution to this aside from your wild conspiracy theories without evidence.
Last edited:
Is your life really this boring?
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.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Answered on your reactive dribble and drivel thread.
Wow, you gotta love when a guy goes and starts a thread and then has the gall to call it MINE!!!
Gaslighting 101.
Would you really want to defend the nonsense that came from the pen of Constantine SCAM-onides?
Even Avery Spencer doesn't want to do that, so he sets up a mythical story in his mind.
If I can't take Simonides literally writing it when he spelled out that's what his claim was, why should I take literally his claim that Benedict did any prep work at all? (Hint: he didn't because Benedict never knew of any such animal as Sinaiticus).
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Over to your special reactive dribble and driver land.
Last edited:
Incorrect or false assumption and assertion.
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.
Translation: it is more merciful to Daniels not to pay him for his delerious fables & fantasies, as:
Prev 10:16. "The labor of the righteous leads to life, The wages of the wicked to sin."
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
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."
Life is too short to put up with pseudo-scientists dominated by political agendas. This is not how science is done. Science can only be properly carried out if it serves truth alone. It's ironic and very predicable that KJVOs see Sinaiticus as fake or corrupt, but others more evidentially minded do not. Daniels is known to be driven by political agendas, as are you. It's why your science and your argument doesn't measure up. You really believe that any scholars have any partiality for some old manuscript, for its own sake? I think not. Sinaiticus "fits" the 4th century very well, and Simonides has long been discredited. It was absurd for Daniels to try to re-write science by relying on a well-known crook like Simonides, whom would have spent a fair time in jail in the modern age, and who only succeeded for a time because communications were so poor in those days,. It is why the scholarly world completely ignores you.As Maestroh said, you are just wasting your life, and that is not good.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Elijah was so upset that David was involved in defending the superb King James Bible in his Sinaiticus books.
And I responded to his "Review" that did not touch properly on any major points.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
A most amazing example of nonsense dribble and drivel psycho-babble.
Along with the Bulverism fallacy.
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.
Does David Daniels deal properly with your seeming "radical oneness (Sabellianism)" view (see Barrett, Simply Trinity, p. 145)?
Matthew Barrett observed: "According to Sabellianism (also called modalistic monarchianism), God is not three persons but one person who merely changes into different forms" (Simply Trinity, p. 145). Describing this view, Matthew Barrett added: "The one God is not three distinct persons but transitions into three impersonal modes, as if we do not have a Trinity unless the one person of God engages with his creation in three different ways" (p. 146).
In his glossary at his entry Sabellianism, Matthew Barrett stated: "A heresy that denies there is more than one person in the Godhead. Persons are mere functions, as if what makes God Father, Son, and Spirit are the forms he takes when he creates or saves" (p. 324).
Matthew Barrett noted: "The immanent Trinity refers to who the triune God is in himself, apart from creation or the economy of salvation. The economic Trinity refers to how the triune God acts in relation to creation and in the economy of salvation" (p. 76).