Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
Yes, and they will hold on to the lie forever. When you present facts that show it could not have been an 18th century copy they deny the evidence no matter what. You can present fact after fact and since they cannot really interact with a person on that level they will still deny.
The facts have already been presented to you. You are either unable to comprehend, or are just to stuborn to admitt you were wrong in the uneducated guess about the false accusation about Sinaiticus. If you cared about God's Original Text you would already know that it is impossible for Siniaticus to be an 19th century forgery. Because you would have already studied its Text.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it interesting that Trinitarian David W. Daniel is yoked together with anti-Trinitarian, oneness Steven Avery?
I came across Maestroh's review of the above named book at the "other" board. He demolishes the arguments of both Daniel's and his apprentice.
I had no idea this was even a belief of kjvos until I came across Daniels' book on kindle.
I'll be bringing some of Maestroh's observations over here after work (Unless he beats me to it).
In post #222 in another thread entitled:
"When Team Sinaiticus (Team Simoneidos) met in Saskatchewan a few years back, we had a wonderful time. David Daniels, Chris Pinto, Mark Michie and family and friends and yours truly. Picture on Facebook."
heavenly witnesses - full use in extant writings before Priscillian - Isaac the Jew
, Steve Avery wrote:"When Team Sinaiticus (Team Simoneidos) met in Saskatchewan a few years back, we had a wonderful time. David Daniels, Chris Pinto, Mark Michie and family and friends and yours truly. Picture on Facebook."
What is Codex Sinaiticus?
Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.The significance of Codex Sinaiticus for the reconstruction of the Christian Bible's original text, the history of the Bible and the history of Western book-making is immense.
Codex Sinaiticus - About Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration to reunite the...
www.codexsinaiticus.org
the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint
Steven;
is the Sinaiticus reliable ??????
All scholars everywhere acknowledge the plain fact that Codex Sinaiticus is an ancient handwritten manuscript of the Bible. Everyone on this planet acknowledge it to be so. The only exception is a tiny faction of KJVOnlyist, who are not scholars and who have no authority whatsoever believing a false lie of a 19th century con man and 21st century con men. It is you that has the untruth of con men. We have thousand of copies of God's Word. Your untruths cannot cancel that as hard as you try.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Still nothing.
What facts?
How many scholars are really familiar the manuscript and historical and palaeographic evidence?
In round numbers.
Well we know YOU aren't. 😆 🤣 😂
And neither are your 3 partners in crime (Pinto, Daniels, Michie).
You four seem to be the only ones on earth pushing the ridiculous conspiracy theory that aleph was created in the 19th century.
A little bit from Maestroh's review of Daniels' book:
My criticism of this book is (unsurprisingly) extensive, and despite 300 pages to lay out his case, Daniels's case is so transparently goofy and incomplete that minimal intelligence could see through it. In fact, if Daniels cut out the KJVO preaching to the choir, his book would have about half as many pages.
It is also crystal clear from an early page that this isn't really Daniels's research so much as it is a regurgitation of literally hundreds of repetitive Internet posts that Avery, who cannot even read Sinaiticus and would not be able to pick it out of a lineup of similar looking manuscripts, has posted online the past four years.
Indeed, Avery's name appears eleven times on eleven pages. Kallinikos, the supposed source of virtually all of the conspiratorial information, appears eighteen times on only eight pages and Uncle Benedict, supposedly the inspiration for Simonides and called "famous" (which could likewise be said about O.J. Simpson) by Daniels - appears only eight times.
The reason for this will be discussed below as it is one of the major problems with Daniels's book. But the simple truth is that the book is almost nothing save some rewritten Internet posts collected into a book and sent out to the public as the original thoughts of a conspiracy theorist. Even some of the chapter titles have their roots in Steven Avery's warped imagination of reality.
For example, the chapter "Coloring the Truth" takes its name from an Avery post on The Biblical Criticism and History Forum posted on January 7, 2016; the chapter "Who Darkened Sinaiticus" is taken from a post placed on CARM one day later and the same title posted on Theology Web on April 12, 2016. One similarly worded title about "a smoking gun" is on Avery's own Pure Bible Forum and was posted April 4, 2016
Continued......
My criticism of this book is (unsurprisingly) extensive, and despite 300 pages to lay out his case, Daniels's case is so transparently goofy and incomplete that minimal intelligence could see through it. In fact, if Daniels cut out the KJVO preaching to the choir, his book would have about half as many pages.
It is also crystal clear from an early page that this isn't really Daniels's research so much as it is a regurgitation of literally hundreds of repetitive Internet posts that Avery, who cannot even read Sinaiticus and would not be able to pick it out of a lineup of similar looking manuscripts, has posted online the past four years.
Indeed, Avery's name appears eleven times on eleven pages. Kallinikos, the supposed source of virtually all of the conspiratorial information, appears eighteen times on only eight pages and Uncle Benedict, supposedly the inspiration for Simonides and called "famous" (which could likewise be said about O.J. Simpson) by Daniels - appears only eight times.
The reason for this will be discussed below as it is one of the major problems with Daniels's book. But the simple truth is that the book is almost nothing save some rewritten Internet posts collected into a book and sent out to the public as the original thoughts of a conspiracy theorist. Even some of the chapter titles have their roots in Steven Avery's warped imagination of reality.
For example, the chapter "Coloring the Truth" takes its name from an Avery post on The Biblical Criticism and History Forum posted on January 7, 2016; the chapter "Who Darkened Sinaiticus" is taken from a post placed on CARM one day later and the same title posted on Theology Web on April 12, 2016. One similarly worded title about "a smoking gun" is on Avery's own Pure Bible Forum and was posted April 4, 2016
Continued......
Last edited:
(Continued...)
THE DAVID DANIELS CONSPIRACY THEORY
Daniels writes from the viewpoint of an advocacy of the Ruckmanite King James Only view. He refers to the KJV either directly or indirectly as the "preserved" Bible or Word (or references Greek preserved texts) over FIFTY times in a 300-page book. And the necessity of his conspiracy theory becomes clear when he repeatedly impugns Sinaiticus as the primary reason that people have moved away from the KJV to "modern versions."
Daniels's conspiracy theory begins - like virtually every nonsensical KJVO theory - with the notion of there being TWO "streams of Bibles" that consist of the good majority at Antioch and the bad minority of Alexandria. Because Daniels writes from a rather radical dispensationalist point of view that sees the Roman Catholic Church as "the wicked whore of Babylon," they become the perpetrators of the fraud that will ultimately lead to a one-world church and religion.
After erecting the absurd edifice of the two streams, Daniels jumps into the wild idea of Manly Hall and the New World Order trying to replace the KJV with a new Bible. Daniels goes further, alleging that President Franklin Roosevelt was - and I quote - "a 33rd Degree Mason" (33, 224) who "loved Hall and his occultic NWO teachings" (33). It has never failed to amaze me how many people who aren't even involved in secret societies can somehow know everything about what goes on and who exactly is what level in the secret society.
Presumably, these secret societies aren't so secret. Daniels then distorts a quotation by Hall to suggest that Hall is part of a large conspiracy that goes back to 1844, the year Tischendorf first discovered what eventually came to be called Sinaiticus, to replace the KJV. Daniels further selectively quotes - by which I mean flat out distorts - other works by Hall, all available online, to try and suggest we now are living in a time that Hall says "they" could change across "five generations."
Continued.....
THE DAVID DANIELS CONSPIRACY THEORY
Daniels writes from the viewpoint of an advocacy of the Ruckmanite King James Only view. He refers to the KJV either directly or indirectly as the "preserved" Bible or Word (or references Greek preserved texts) over FIFTY times in a 300-page book. And the necessity of his conspiracy theory becomes clear when he repeatedly impugns Sinaiticus as the primary reason that people have moved away from the KJV to "modern versions."
Daniels's conspiracy theory begins - like virtually every nonsensical KJVO theory - with the notion of there being TWO "streams of Bibles" that consist of the good majority at Antioch and the bad minority of Alexandria. Because Daniels writes from a rather radical dispensationalist point of view that sees the Roman Catholic Church as "the wicked whore of Babylon," they become the perpetrators of the fraud that will ultimately lead to a one-world church and religion.
After erecting the absurd edifice of the two streams, Daniels jumps into the wild idea of Manly Hall and the New World Order trying to replace the KJV with a new Bible. Daniels goes further, alleging that President Franklin Roosevelt was - and I quote - "a 33rd Degree Mason" (33, 224) who "loved Hall and his occultic NWO teachings" (33). It has never failed to amaze me how many people who aren't even involved in secret societies can somehow know everything about what goes on and who exactly is what level in the secret society.
Presumably, these secret societies aren't so secret. Daniels then distorts a quotation by Hall to suggest that Hall is part of a large conspiracy that goes back to 1844, the year Tischendorf first discovered what eventually came to be called Sinaiticus, to replace the KJV. Daniels further selectively quotes - by which I mean flat out distorts - other works by Hall, all available online, to try and suggest we now are living in a time that Hall says "they" could change across "five generations."
Continued.....
Cont......
This conspiracy - in Daniels's presumably sober imagination - was primarily overseen by having Constantine Tischendorf find Sinaiticus and bring it out of St Catherine's monastery to present to the world as a fourth century manuscript. Upon finding out he had been fooled, Tischendorf then - according to David Daniels as informed by "researcher" Steven Avery - "darkens" Sinaiticus so as to fool everyone into thinking the manuscript is older than it really is. From this point, Daniels makes the illogical jump to saying that to accept the Alexandrian text is to accept the Alexandrian scholars who wrote it and thus to accept the Roman Catholic Apocrypha as authentic Scripture.
He then basically writes off anything Tischendorf had to say about any subject as a lie (with one notable exception: more on this cherry picking in a moment). The rest of the book revolves around this excursion into speculation and ends with Daniels basically thinking Constantine Simonides authored Sinaiticus around 1840-41. No chance is missed to insult, impugn, disparage, or slander Tischendorf while granting Simonides a free pass. In the end, Daniels decides on the basis of a specious letter by an interesting "Pug Henry" character who just happens to wind up in the right place at the right time to witness Tischendorf's long-running hoax, that the whole thing is a charade and Tischendorf a liar.
Of course, in his lack of being as skeptical of sources who endorse his theories, it never occurs to Daniels that this - by definition - makes Pug Henry (whose name in this breathless and mindless theory is Kallinikos) part of the conspiracy and thus just as guilty as Tischendorf. One must question why Daniels feels he can trust such a source that by his own other standards would also have to be untrustworthy but such logical consistency is foreign to Daniels's apologetic.
Numerous errors permeate this monstrosity:
More after work....
This conspiracy - in Daniels's presumably sober imagination - was primarily overseen by having Constantine Tischendorf find Sinaiticus and bring it out of St Catherine's monastery to present to the world as a fourth century manuscript. Upon finding out he had been fooled, Tischendorf then - according to David Daniels as informed by "researcher" Steven Avery - "darkens" Sinaiticus so as to fool everyone into thinking the manuscript is older than it really is. From this point, Daniels makes the illogical jump to saying that to accept the Alexandrian text is to accept the Alexandrian scholars who wrote it and thus to accept the Roman Catholic Apocrypha as authentic Scripture.
He then basically writes off anything Tischendorf had to say about any subject as a lie (with one notable exception: more on this cherry picking in a moment). The rest of the book revolves around this excursion into speculation and ends with Daniels basically thinking Constantine Simonides authored Sinaiticus around 1840-41. No chance is missed to insult, impugn, disparage, or slander Tischendorf while granting Simonides a free pass. In the end, Daniels decides on the basis of a specious letter by an interesting "Pug Henry" character who just happens to wind up in the right place at the right time to witness Tischendorf's long-running hoax, that the whole thing is a charade and Tischendorf a liar.
Of course, in his lack of being as skeptical of sources who endorse his theories, it never occurs to Daniels that this - by definition - makes Pug Henry (whose name in this breathless and mindless theory is Kallinikos) part of the conspiracy and thus just as guilty as Tischendorf. One must question why Daniels feels he can trust such a source that by his own other standards would also have to be untrustworthy but such logical consistency is foreign to Daniels's apologetic.
Numerous errors permeate this monstrosity:
More after work....
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Is was reliable for scribe play testing, like when the accent marks were placed in the Shepherd of Hermas.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Finally, a helpful post from Rick Norris!
It was helpful to readers to show your connection to Trinitarian KJV-only author David W. Daniels who uses the two streams of Bibles argument in his current KJV-only books even though you tried to suggest that argument was not current in present KJV-only writings.
Did you share with him your anti-trinitarian oneness views?
Among the evidences for the authenticity and antiquity of the Codex Sinaiticus is that it contained (or originally contained) the whole of LXX and the whole NT; plus the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas - in Greek and in a fuller text than was previously available. Also, the NT is written in a handwriting style of great antiquity, much different from medieval and modern handwriting. The inclusion of those two documents (and the Shepherd is a fairly long document), and their quality, is indicative that this was an ancient work, something that predated the establishment of the NT canon.
Last edited: