If he's holding to a dichotomy between the parchment production (meaning, the date when the cattle were breed and grown, slaughtered, skinned, tanned, scraped, processed etc) and a separate production for the writing of the text, then why does he hold his breath for BAM testing?
devious and deceptive way of speaking/writing
And looking personally at Simonides many existing examples of his calligraphy, he's simply not up to the grade (nor does it match) the hand writing on the Codex Sinaiticus. As Kalliga said, he was a very "clumsy" forger.
NO!!!The box script of Sinaiticus was exceedingly easy. You can find similar scripts in various manuscripts, and Mt. Athos is manuscript city.
Says the foolish pseudo-researcher who can neither read, speak, nor write Greek. Why didn't Dionysis help Simonides then?The box script of Sinaiticus was exceedingly easy.
That applies well to your convoluted questions.
It is one of your typical tactics to try to misrepresent, smear, or discredit thought-provoking questions whose answers would expose serious problems in your unproven claims.That applies well to your convoluted questions.
Says the foolish pseudo-researcher who can neither read, speak, nor write Greek. Why didn't Dionysis help Simonides then?
The box script of Sinaiticus was exceedingly easy. You can find similar scripts in various manuscripts, and Mt. Athos is manuscript city.
I wonder which part of the manuscript he was planning on demonstrating, since there were undeniably multiple scribal hands and correctors that worked on Sinaiticus.If it was so easy, why did Simonides demand $10,000 (pounds? dollars? = going by memory here) to show a live demonstration of him (supposedly) easily writing the exact script of the Sinaiticus at normal handwriting speed before an audience?
This is a good estimation.
How exactly do you arrive at circa. A.D. 1500 for the production of the parchment?
Upon what scientific basis do you reach this date?
So, is the Codex Sinaiticus parchment itself, to you personally, an A.D. 1500's production (meaning grown, processed/tanned, prepared A D. 1500's)?
Or, is the Codex Sinaiticus parchment itself, to you personally, an A.D. 1800's production (meaning grown, processed/tanned, prepared A.D. 1800's)?
Or, is the Codex Sinaiticus parchment itself, to you personally, an A.D. 400's production (meaning grown, processed/tanned, prepared A.D. 400's)?
This is a good estimation.
Does Mr Snapp know about his dating of the parchment "production"?
Did Steven bring up his dichotomy of dating between the parchment and the text during the debate?
He should have... it's a key issue, is it not?
This is a very poor estimation IMO.
How exactly do you arrive at circa A.D. 1500 for the production of the parchment?
Upon what scientific basis do you reach this date?