Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?

Give us a bit more background, please, of what's going on?

What in particular makes you think Newbirth might be Me Avery?

See post #214
It appears that Newbirth was simply careless. Their writing styles seem different enough to justify the distinction unless of the accounts is intentionally masking their style according to some type of rubric. I'll apologize to Steven Avery here, too. He appears to be the victim of an unfortunate gaffe.
 
It appears that Newbirth was simply careless. Their writing styles seem different enough to justify the distinction unless of the accounts is intentionally masking their style according to some type of rubric. I'll apologize to Steven Avery here, too. He appears to be the victim of an unfortunate gaffe.
....and Newbirth communicates with Unbound. They are definitely not the same person, and display opposing theologies.
 
Please share how you get to the crusty and brittle conclusion.

Both "phenomenally good condition" and "crusty and brittle" are relative phrases which are both subject to further qualification.

Does this part of the Codex Sinaiticus below look in "phenomenally good condition"?

https://codexsinaiticus.org/de/img/Creases.jpg

No.

No it doesn't. So "phenomenally good" is qualified and relative, just as my saying "crusty and brittle" is subject to further qualification and is therefore a relative statement.
 
Last edited:
Does this different part of the Codex Sinaiticus below look in "phenomenally good condition"?
https://codexsinaiticus.org/de/img/Cockerell-Repair-Parchment.jpg
It doesn't look "phenomenally good" to me.

The parchment and ink look wonderful.

The edge has a stain, perhaps a spill of water or lemon-juice or herbs.
Generally the heavily stained pages are in the 1859 British Library pages, not the 1844 Leipzig.
We know the 1844 Leipzig did not have the "special set of skills" to make it look more yellow with age.

Anyway, if you want me to comment on each one, you should give the source.
e.g. Allowing us to look at the full page, and know about the page. And see it in the context of its section.

The best source is the CSP primary page. Also reasonable is a url to the secondary page where you copied the picture url, since they likely give the primary page, so one leads to another.

===============

Once again:
Do you have your date of Sinaiticus production yet?
 
The Sinaiticus shows definite signs of age and wear-and-tear. I cannot prove that this puts it back to the fourth century but it undeniably shows age well beyond 1840.
 
Back
Top