Results 1 to 2 of 2

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.


Posting Permissions

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