Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: BVDB attempts to defend Sinaiticus authenticity while censoring responses and ducking substantive dialog

  1. Default BVDB attempts to defend Sinaiticus authenticity while censoring responses and ducking substantive dialog

    Lets start with what was put into the PureBible forum recently.

    PureBible on Facebook

    Most of you write coherently, we had some sharp discussions, that are in your archives, years back.

    Some of you realize, I believe, that, at the very least, the Sinaiticus non-authenticity evidences deserve careful study.

    Bill Brown makes me look good when he posts on forums like the unofficial SBL. He is known for “liar”, “imbecile”: and vulgarisms that should not be written or repeated. And some logic struggles. However, I don’t care about looking good, I just would like the issues to be studied, iron sharpeneth.

    Rather than your forum being only the anti-Avery forum, why not try something constructive.

    Why not take issues (like the Porter-Elliott list).and discuss them with me, just without the potty mouth stuff from Bill. Your forum would be okay, but you have me censored there. That is your right, forum mods make the rules. You could set up a special board.

    My forums are open. or one of these Facebook forums ... but the Facebook forums, without an external connection, are mediocre on readability.

    Or make your own suggestion. Look at BCHF, Bible Criticism and History Forum, as a success story where there have been solid Sinaiticus discussions.

    Grow up a bit. Let us reason together.

  2. Default the end of Hermas was planted ???

    Since this thread has BVDB in the title, I can use it for various things related to their posts.

    "Avery has already insinuated the end of Hermes was planted evidence in St. George's tower to make it "appear" that Simonides lied about running out of parchment to finish."
    Hermas not Hermes


    Which is total nonsense. They simply do not know how to read. It is common for them to go into their silly rant mode based on their own errors. I was not quoted when this stuff was written, because my quotes would show the truth:

    The strongest analysis:
    TIschendorf dumped part of Hermas because it was clearly an embarrassment after his linguistic accusation of Hermas having Latin retroversions that make it a late ms. Followed by his awkward "retraction" as soon as he had the 1859 Hermas. The less the better. Uspensky writes of Hermas without any indication that it was incomplete, and he saw it in 1845 and 1850.

    The comment from Simonides was likely saying what was convenient (if Simonides even remembered the dynamic from 20 years earlier.)

    This is all covered in the PBF pages.

    BVDB - read the post above.


  3. Default

    The invitation remains open for any of the BVDB crew who have a smidgen of solidity and savvy.

    Lot's of good discussions are possible.

  4. Default

    No interest in FFF. Just look at the low quality of the existing discussions. A waste of time forum.

    And as you know, I have no weight or influence on many of the boards mentioned above.

    And no interest in Bill Brown. This invitation is for the BVDB members who can, at times, write coherently, and are not just interested in the silly rant response mode of Bill.

  5. Default the sickness of Bill Brown

    the sickness of Bill Brown


    this is only a sampling

    there are many that are too vulgar to want to have here on this forum. I could put in dozens of examples of weird, sick stuff.

    He is always challenging to a "debate" in some place he picks on some topic he chooses with some rules he declares .. however the main posting he knows is reactive rant.

    Bill Brown - July 23, 2018 - (Nerdy is a forum where I am blocked)

    I said earlier this week that I don’t believe the head fiction writer online (Avery) actually believes what he’s writing any more than OJ’s lawyers thought he was innocent of murder.

    One particularly ignorant sycophant - real name Steven Avery Spenser but who drops his last name from his postings (probably out of shame) - is Old and apparently has few hobbies. He has littered the net fir five years now with dumpsters of half-baked information that are the chemical reaction of Dunning-Krueger meeting Sturgeon’s law. He runs from site to site attacking people, showing up under the pretense of wanting to have “iron sharpens” discussions but mostly to attack anyone who actually holds to a 4th century date as ignorant (he cherry picks Simonides for his info).

    His central argument, which has the intellectual depth of that stuff socks leave between your toes, is to claim Tischendorf stained the Sinaiticus portion of the MS with lemon juice but the CFA portion is purely white. He has a ready made audience of ignorant followers in that crowd who will believe any idea no matter how insanely stupid that vindicates the inerrancy of the KJV. This week in fact, Jack Moorman will be parroting this nonsense at the annual D.A. Waite Misappropriates Dean Burgon’s Name for His Society meeting, the second year in a row someone will be speaking on this there.

    A little leaven has leavened the whole lump and in what must be the most hilarious irony of all...the KJV fundie group that loves to attack people not named Erasmus on the basis of theology has gotten this nonsensical conspiracy theory from a guy who not only toys with conspiracies at Sandy Hook and 9/11 but also denies the Trinity for a Oneness view (and on that basis advocates the Comma Johanneum). I don’t think theology is determinative but there’s a bizarre irony in DBS using the work of a Trinity denier and a Calvinist film maker......the rest of these folks including the OP are passing on these wild imaginations.

    You’re now caught up to speed and probably wish you had the last 2 minutes of your life back.
    This Bill Brown sickness does not negate the purpose of the thread .. which is a cordial invite to more sensible BVDB posters to engage in constructive dialog, iron sharpeneth.


    Often they quote material (e.g. Stanley Porter) as if it has not been read, studied and responded. Often, the questions are at least reasonable. So ask me about these types of questions on a real discussion forum, not a one-way rant forum dominated by one sick poster.


    This next one surprised even me, and occurred in a discussion about the health of David Cloud, who has had a heart attack. (I met David Cloud once, and he was exceedingly cordial and sweet.)

    Bill Brown - August 10th, 2018, 1:14 pm #14
    "The most surprising thing about this post is the notion Cloud has a heart"
    Continues below.

    There are dozens of examples of his sickness. I will mostly work with new ones as they arise. Often they are on the cloistered contra forum, but if he thinks he express his vitriol on public forums he will.

    Oct 3, 2018
    Nobody likes an arrogant rude asshole, regardless of what he claims to believe.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 10-05-2018 at 12:54 PM.

  6. Default Erasmus heavenly witnesses correspondence - Frank Logsdon

    In the Jack Moorman -- Sinaiticus talk at DBS discussion:

    Didn't Erasmus know someone who had access to Vaticanus?

    Yes, his name was Bombasius. Erasmus asked him to check 1 John 5:7 to see if the Heavenly Witnesses were in the text.
    Also look up Sepulveda, some years later, who sent Erasmus 365 readings from Vaticanus. Also, it is believed that at least one reading made the Erasmus commentary.


    Oh comes the long-discredited quote from Frank Logsdon regarding the NASV. Do these dudes ever bother checking out the FACTS before opening their mouths? (rhetorical question)
    Actually, Frank Logsdon was careful and accurate. What he said was at times mangled. David Cloud made a significant error, in his transcript, about the NAS fella being in it for the $. (I did write to him and ask him to correct it, his response made me think a little less about David Cloud. And Gail Riplinger upped Logsdon's position.)

    Logsdon's audio tape is very sincere and accurate, I have never heard of even a tiny error in what he said. The NAS response did not refute one word of what he actually said.

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-23-2018 at 08:15 AM.

  7. Default the Sinaiticus authenticity authors

    August 2, 2018

    ..... It amazes me that Moorman, Sheppard, Cooper, Daniels, and Avery cannot agree on all of the details of their propaganda
    No need to be amazed.
    You are asking a lot for "all of the details".

    David and myself are exceedingly close in details.
    We often discuss the interpretations of the "facts on the ground".

    Cooper (also Sorenson, whom you omitted) made some real doozie errors in their books. They are discussed on this forum. Shepherd (not Sheppard) and Moorman got trapped on a Cooper error or two. For the most part I consider their writings irrelevant, except that Cooper sometimes turns a good phrase. If I look carefully in his book, I may find some good original points. However, the doozies make the book overall unusable.

    They all may help to spur interest in the right direction. However, any residue errors have to be cleaned up.

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-23-2018 at 09:14 AM.

  8. Default the church doctorate mill

    how come nearly everyone from the KJVO camp making this complaint wants to be called "Dr" even though they do not have any earned doctoral degree whatever (many being "honorary" from no-name unaccredited bible schools or supposedly "earned" from some questionable degree mill)?

    Is there anyone in the Burgon Society (beyond Waite) who actually has a doctorate from a legitimate fully accredited institution? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think not, even if many or most of the presenters want to be called "Dr".
    Basically I agree, without knowing the DBS specifics.

    While I see degrees in topics like textual studies and criticism to be often based on unbelieving presuppositions, circularity, indoctrination, atomistic geek-work, and slip-shod peer review, rather than creative and accurate studies, the title Dr. implying a doctorate should be use for true degrees, if used at all.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-23-2018 at 08:16 AM.

  9. Default insult barrage to try to hide fundamental Bill Brown blunder on Eugenius Bulgaris and the heavenly-earthly witnesses grammar

    This next is a good example that combines the sickness of ranting (post #5) with stupidity.

    The 35 verse examples were given by Bill Brown as a supposed refutation of Eugenius Bulgaris. He could have simply acknowledged that he had erred, but instead tries a diversion rant (emphasis added, not the rant, but the non-substance of the accusation.)

    Steven Avery
    Bill Brown's 35 examples are almost all totally irrelevant - a waste of time. We are only talking about neuter substantives with masculine or feminine grammar.

    Bill Brown
    Congratulations, you're a bigger moron than I thought. First of all, you don't have a clue what a substantive actually is. Second of all, there is no such thing - you utter putz - as "masculine and feminine grammar."
    These are GENDERS you stupid idiot. You know, most people learn enough to fake it. You haven't even learned that much - because you don't actually READ the books/articles you cite.

    So tell me - did the drugs at Cal do this to you or were you ALWAYS this brain dead? Keep this in mind - you're ASSUMING a lot of stuff without actually saying anything. That's not a big surprise.
    If I gave your posts an enema, there wouldn't be anything left.

    So rather than simply acknowledge that his examples were wrong, he went into a rant against:

    "masculine and feminine grammar."

    This refers to the grammatical gender of the phrase, which in the earthly witnesses is masculine grammar. As indicated in the participles, pronouns, etc. And the terms "masculine grammar" and "feminine grammar" are quite simple. Here is one example.

    Stevens Greek Workbook: A Companion to the Accordance Module
    By Gerald L. Stevens

    is distinction as to masculine, feminine, or neuter. Thus, nouns associated with feminine gender, such as sister or woman, would show feminine grammar. Nouns associated with masculine gender, such as brother or man, would show masculine grammar. Nouns that do not distinguish gender show neuter grammar (book, tree).

    The only reason for the rant by Bill Brown above is to avoid the substance of the issue .. his giving of 35 examples was quite irrelevant, a non-argument. Rather than simply acknowledge the truth, and to hide his own error, Bill Brown fabricates an insult barge.

    bigger moron
    you don't have a clue you utter putz
    you stupid idiot.
    most people learn enough to fake it. You haven't even learned that much -
    you don't actually READ the books/articles you cite.
    did the drugs at Cal do this to you or were you ALWAYS this brain dead?
    If I gave your posts an enema, there wouldn't be anything left.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Eugenius and Brown's 35 examples.jpg 
Views:	54 
Size:	80.3 KB 
ID:	320
    This is one of the reasons why I say that Bill Brown is simply sick.
    More details relating to this post are at:

    Barry Hofstetter - piddle Greek USA scholar challenges Eugenius Bulgaris - taken to woodshed by Greek fluent Bible believer
    absurd argumentation by Bill Brown ignorantly embraced by James Snapp

  10. Default Bill Brown - it was only Snapp appealing to my post

    Bill Brown's answer - he tries to distance himself from his own arguments, saying that it was only James Snapp that appealed to his post on CARM.

    You apparently don't read ENGLISH very well since I never appealed to my CARM post, Snapp did.
    Bill could easily say in correction of James:

    "No, that post was wrong, James, please do not appeal to it as an argument against the Eugenius Bulgaris grammatical writing."
    So you would think that Bill Brown was agreeing with the appeal - to his own errant writings, never retracted!

    The latest post in general is a bunch of additional sick insults, with as little substance as the sentence above.

    And I do find it funny that Bill whines about my energy in writing, for my age. A compliment, of sorts. By the grace of the Lord Jesus, and a pretty sound food and drink regimen, my health has been blessed.

    Any intimations he gives about "Jack Daniels" is simply bogus (my remembrance - Bill does talk about going to the pub at times) since my total alcohol consumption is about 1/2 glass of wine a year. A large imbibement is sometimes taking the sample portion that they bring you at Olive Garden, where I eat very infrequently.


    btw, Bill likes to appeal to his thesis on the heavenly witnesses. He could easily place it online. However, the quality is about the same as the post that claims that the post with 35 verse references supplies 35 refutations of the grammatical argument! So it is understandable that Bill Brown does not want to place it anywhere, like


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts