Sara Mazzarino - "What I can certainly say is that the conservation conditions of CS are absolutely perfect in is current state"

TwoNoteableCorruptions · Aug 29, 2023

Steven Avery said:
More spamming by duplication on multiple threads.

Worse, extra pictures, straining CARM resources, trying to distract.

A worthless diversion effort.

Not duplication. The wording has been changed.

Try again.

Your resort to lowbrow denigration is strong evidence that you are feeling very threatened by these clear colour comparisons that illustrate yours and David Daniel's fundamental error.

TwoNoteableCorruptions · Aug 29, 2023

Steven Avery said:
Without any spots ever shown, even in the CSP of 2011, such claims are under a cloud.

Sara Mazzarino - "What I can certainly say is that the conservation conditions of CS are absolutely perfect in is current state"

Simplistic contextomy.

As demonstrated previously, you're not even comprehending the meaning of the sentence.

Steven Avery · Aug 30, 2023

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Simplistic contextomy.
As demonstrated previously, you're not even comprehending the meaning of the sentence.

Nothing was demonstrated previously that challenges the ultra-clear language of Sara Mazzarino.

TwoNoteableCorruptions · Aug 30, 2023

Steven Avery said:
Nothing was demonstrated previously that challenges the ultra-clear language of Sara Mazzarino.

Resorting to denial.

Defeat is extremely hard (i.e. impossible for you) to admit. So this is what we expect.

Steven Avery · Aug 30, 2023

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Resorting to denial.
Defeat is extremely hard (i.e. impossible for you) to admit. So this is what we expect.

You could quote your supposed “demonstration” about what Sara really meant.

TwoNoteableCorruptions · Aug 31, 2023

Steven Avery said:
CSP
The portion of the Codex kept at the British Library shows very little major ink corrosion. The ink originally used by the scribes appears to be in very good condition, and it is not causing corrosion of the support in any part of the text.

It says "very little" which is in fact a quantity, and doesn't mean none.

It says "major" = a qualifying adjective.

It's NOT saying there is no ink corrosion at all.

So we need a detailed definition of "major corrosion" and further explanation of the phrase "causing corrosion of the support".

TwoNoteableCorruptions · Aug 31, 2023

Steven Avery said:
Agreed.
Now, do you really, really see this as an ink-acid-reaction parchment destruction hole??
View attachment 4619

Is it really "Major Ink Corrosion" or are they just funning you,

Hmmm

Here's something Steven is omitting from his image!

The brown paper backing is showing through the holes!

Steven Avery · Sep 3, 2023

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
The brown paper backing is showing through the holes!

You craftily call them "ink-corrosion holes" in the picture, but your text here is more honest.

TwoNoteableCorruptions · Sep 16, 2023

cjab said:
I didn't know you could search Sinaiticus text, until now. So below is the page it came from:

Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Barnabas |

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

"https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=60&chapter=15&verse=5"

It says in the physical description for Barnabas 15:5, that this page does have "ink corrosion".

See inside the red circle below:

Now, unfortunately, the CodexSinaticus.org website does not provide a physical description for every part of the manuscript.

TwoNoteableCorruptions · Sep 21, 2023

Steven Avery said:
Agreed.
Now, do you really, really see this as an ink-acid-reaction parchment destruction hole??
View attachment 4619

Is it really "Major Ink Corrosion" or are they just funning you, essentially proving that they do not have major ink corrosion to show you from anywhere. "C'mon, bro, we need something we can call major ink corrosion!".

Btw, on the supposed major ink corrosion in Acts, I had previously confirmed with the CSP that it was an erasure. That was one reason I have been so confident that there simply is not ink-acid destruction of parchment. (Essentially another proof that it is a young manuscript.)

So, how did this incredible parchment avoid any ink-acid reaction destruction of parchment over the supposed 1750 years??
Of movement, use, dryness, heat and more use?

Easy. It has only been 270 years.

For other readers.

Unfortunately, not every book of the Bible in the Codex Sinaiticus at the codexsinaiticus.org website has a physical description button.

But most, if not all of the NT, and Barnabas, and Hermas have a physical description.

Click the tick box for Physical Description, then click the drop down menu below for Condition (see image below) to find whether an individual folio has ink corrosion or not.

The game is up on your ink corrosion diversions.

Steven Avery · Sep 30, 2023

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
The game is up on your ink corrosion diversions.

"Minor ink corrosion" as you highlight above can be expected after 270 years.
And you should look closely at the spot to see how minor.

In the truly ancient manuscripts, the ink-acid reaction is creating holes in the parchment. Even in Vaticanus (questionable age) you can see them in abundance.

The attempts to show similar in the Codex Sinaiticus have been extremely limited, involving special circumstances like erasure or a particular deteriorated page like the New Finds, and rather lame.