Steven Avery
Well-known member
I said it's on page 273 in the work Daniels cited.
Can you not read plain English?
Nothing about St. Catherine's.
Not even Sinai.
David is right, you are wrong.
Did you have reading difficulties?
I said it's on page 273 in the work Daniels cited.
Can you not read plain English?
David Daniels:
If you have a Bible that is not the King James and published after 1880, then it is likely that there are changes in the text that ultimately come from the Sinaiticus. (page 4)
Given the fact we are talking about readings SOLELY in Sinaiticus....the fact pc is MORE THAN ONE MANUSCRIPT here actually PROVES MY POINT!
It only makes sense in an ancient scriptoreum. No one could make up that Text. Nothing else like it on this planet now exists. Certainly in the 2nd/3rd/4th century their was its exemplar. Your made up fantasy denial is just more of your rejection of the word of God.
That was possible in the 1800s with a wide variety of sources available.
It is not really explainable in the 4th century.
Throughout history later scribes corrected its text towards the Byzantine Text. Multiple scribes in ancient hands keep on and on making corrections to the Byzantine Text. Of course Byzantine manuscripts agree with medieval Greek manuscripts. They are Byzantine manuscripts, written by byzantine scribes. What is so hard to understand about that?Also you have Sinaiticus correctors connected to specific medieval manuscripts.
There is no good explanation for that phenomenon except that the manuscripts were used to correct Sinaiticus.
You have to keep in mind that Avery’s position on Sinaiticus calls into question the authenticity of every other biblical manuscript in existence.Nope. No one could have made up that Text. It's Text goes back to the 1st, 2nd, probably 3rd centuries and definitely 4th century.
Throughout history later scribes corrected its text towards the Byzantine Text. Multiple scribes in ancient hands keep on and on making corrections to the Byzantine Text. Of course Byzantine manuscripts agree with medieval Greek manuscripts. They are Byzantine manuscripts, written by byzantine scribes. What is so hard to understand about that?
Throughout history later scribes corrected its text towards the Byzantine Text. Multiple scribes in ancient hands keep on and on making corrections to the Byzantine Text. Of course Byzantine manuscripts agree with medieval Greek manuscripts. They are Byzantine manuscripts, written by byzantine scribes. What is so hard to understand about that?
That would be the Byzantine Text. You know, 85-95% of all manuscripts.1) You would have to look at the specific variants and how the manuscript and correctors are connected.
Why? Did all those Byzantine revisors revise the Old Covenant/Apocrapha of Sinaiticus with a non-Byzantine Text?2) Your theory would only even have a potential application for New Testament books, not the OT, apocrypha, or Hermas and Barnabas.
1) You would have to look at the specific variants and how the manuscript and correctors are connected.
2) Your theory would only even have a potential application for New Testament books, not the OT, apocrypha, or Hermas and Barnabas.
5) Sloppy Research
Daniels clearly CANNOT do firsthand research. Or – to be charitable – if he CAN, he most assuredly did NOT do so on this book. The book is designed to appear to be a thoroughly researched tome, but Daniels did very little beyond click Google and find what he could on a search engine. Take, for example, Daniels’s quotation of Charles Stewart’s biography of Simonides. The only pages Daniels ever actually cites or quotes are THE FEW CURRENTLY AVAILABLE ONLINE via Google search. He only cites pages that can be found online (there are at least two sections available).
This is an example of Bill Brown simply making stuff up.
The PDF of the Memoir has been available online since early 2016, and David and I have looked it over beginning to end.
I've documented his misquotation
Nothing about St. Catherine's.
Not even Sinai.
David is right, you are wrong.
Did you have reading difficulties?
Are you describing you yourself?You repeat the same blunder accusation again and again and again, and still refuse correction.
Are you describing you yourself?
Have you accepted or refused correction of your erroneous, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning?
His last name is Daniels, not Daniel.(Which blunder he then used to falsely accuse David Daniel's scholarship.)
If you have a specific factual blunder that you think needs correction, simply quote me and give the correction.
Rather "Daniels' scholarship" as when a word's pronounciation ends in a "z" sound, no further s is required, as the resulting construct is unpronounceable. "Jesus's" is OK, because the 's can be pronounced as Jesus ends in an "s" sound.His last name is Daniels, not Daniel.
It’s not the “scholarship” of Daniel, but the “scholarship” of Daniels.
Daniels’s “scholarship.”
Not Daniel’s “scholarship.”
This is elementary English grammar.
Let me guess, you’re iPad is to blame again.
Researcher, indeed.
......by analogy with plural possessives, which grammatically enforce ' for 's where the "s" ending also leads to the "z" sound in so many cases (notable exceptions including ps, is, us, as, os).Rather "Daniels' scholarship" as when a word's pronounciation ends in a "z" sound, no further s is required, as the resulting construct is unpronounceable. "Jesus's" is OK, because the 's can be pronounced as Jesus ends in an "s" sound.
Rather "Daniels' scholarship" as when a word's pronounciation ends in a "z" sound, no further s is required, as the resulting construct is unpronounceable. "Jesus's" is OK, because the 's can be pronounced as Jesus ends in an "s" sound.
Where a vowel immediately precedes z, then it would fall under a category of exceptions where 's is OK. because the 's becomes pronounceable. There are exceptions to every rule...... The rule I identified was based on whether the 's can be pronounced easily. Most of the time it can't be with a <zzzzz> sound at the end.True in a sense for good style, but not a rule.
Possessive Case of Nouns: Rules and Examples
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/possessive-case/
Possessive forms of singular nouns
The possessive case of most singular nouns, whether common or proper, is formed by adding –’s to the end. See the following examples:
..... This general rule usually applies even to names ending in s or z:
You’re sitting in Paz’s chair.
However, this is a matter of style, and some style guides call for leaving off the s after the apostrophe for a name ending in s or z. Neither choice is incorrect.