You offer "likely" speculations instead of presenting verifiable facts. "Likely" speculations do not amount to tons of evidence.
Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Do you state a position on the date and authenticity of “Sinaiticus”?
The date of Sinaiticus has nothing to do with my scripturally-based position.
You have failed to prove your position concerning Sinaiticus to be true. Perhaps your unproven position is connected to your erroneous KJV-onlyism.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So, we can conclude that you allow Sinaiticus/Simoneidos to be produced at Mt. Athos in the 1800s.
Why should I allow for mere unproven KJV-only claims and speculations? Why should I conclude that your KJV-only bias has not blinded or misled you?
KJV-only advocates may have an ulterior or self-serving motive for wanting to try to discredit this manuscript or for trusting the unproven claims of a forger.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
If you believed that Sinaiticus was 4th century, you could state that simply. The fact that you do not is properly interpreted by saying that you allow other dates.
You jump to an incorrect conclusion. You again try to claim something to be a fact when it is not a fact.
I already pointed out that I simply am not interested in the date of Sinaiticus since it does not affect my scripturally-based position.
In other words, the true answer is, "I don't know, but since I have no evidence supporting Simonides, I'll just give an explanation that fits what I really want to believe."
This right here is why nobody believes that if the testing DID show an early date that you'd ever actually admit it.
It is an authentically old manuscript not in any way written by the lying forger Constantine Simonides.
I'm gonna say this again, and while I know you won't listen, I will likewise say it for everyone else.
THIS is why nobody believes a word you say about so many subjects.
You do NO first-hand research AT ALL.
What you do is mine old books for quotes and quote them.
This doesn't surprise me because it's par for the course for the desperate wannabe scholars who don't want to put in the years and years of frustration and dead ends. But it's also why nobody from scholar to poster takes any of your findings seriously. You didn't interact with my thesis, you just made assertions and quoted long dead scholars, completely ignoring more recent findings.
"They are not mentioned by any writers" is nothing but "I looked on Google Books and found nothing, so there!"
And that's because you cannot do actual firsthand research, which requires knowledge of Greek (and it helps if you know German, as do I, or French, and you know neither). And you also do not know Latin, so you're very limited at stage one regarding resources. (It also helps to actually READ THEM IN CONTEXT, which is another issue with your claims).
So "no writers mentions this" is simply not a problem for those of us whom you mock for seminary educations, but who actually have watched beginning students (first semester) make the same mistakes you do.
Several people who actually have done this have pointed this out to him for several years.
But it doesn't seem to stop him from making the claim.
I can provide repeated links to corrections to misinformation he shares, and the only thing that happens is he restates the refuted nonsensical point. Go over to the Simonides thread to see how the SART team is asymmetrical in their logic concerning the Lampros Catalog.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
It is not binding, or lack of binding, that is the big factor that prevents easy-peasy page turning.
It is the effects of time along with the heat and dryness of the climate, that causes parchment to lose elasticity.
This is also true for the ink-parchment acid decay, which we do not have with Sinaiticus.
Try to find pictures of Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae etc. with easy-peasy parchment movement.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The catalog confirms Benedict, Kallinikos and Simonides working on manuscripts at exactly the time period that fits the creation of Sinaiticus. Kallinikos and Simonides worked on the same manuscript.
What is "asymmetrical"?
Your supposed corrections are generally weak attempts, like this one.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Good example.
We hired a professional translator and made the Uspensky comments available in English.
Nobody had discussed his comments in English properly.
Like the Lampros catalog, confirming Benedict, Kallinikos and Simonides at Athos c. 1840, this is a critical piece of information.
Elliott totally missed it, and the Farrer discussion.
Similarly the fact that Tischendorf stole five full quires in 1844. Nowhere mentioned.
We searched down other information, like the thief's talk of Tischendorf, writing to his family that the 1844 leaves had simply come into his possession. Then we confirmed that he only made up the con-man 'saved by fire' idea in 1859. Super-con.
Yet the writers before the SART team missed, again and again, critical information.
(And this only scratches the surface, examples.)
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
How many parchments have you handled (in the flesh)?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
How do you know?
What tangible evidence do you have to verify your words (claim) above?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Pictures?
How can you physically feel through your hands (i.e. actually in person) page (folio) turning ease from digital "pictures"?
And, have you physically handled (turned the pages in each of) these manuscripts (i.e. Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae and whatever you mean by "etc") and turned the pages of each yourself Steven?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Did Simonides himself say that one of the proofs of his claim that he wrote the Sinaiticus is the ease of page turning?
If so where is that recorded in a letter etc?
If so where is that recorded in a letter etc?
I have not been privileged to touch a truly ancient manuscript but I did handle some medieval books - handwritten on parchment - in the library of Catholic University in DC. And parchment, unlike paper, is very easy to turn. The pages do not stick to each other. This because each page of parchment has its own configuration, sort of flat but with unique wrinkles. I have no reason to believe that a parchment document as ancient as Sinaiticus or Vaticanus would be any different.
Last edited: