Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Sinaiticus vlog index

  1. Default Sinaiticus vlog index

    Vlog index .. taken from:

    Vigilant Citizens Forum
    https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/th...iticized.3461/


    Quote Originally Posted by Red Sky at Morning
    #1) Is Sinaiticus a Fake? - 9:22
    #2) Who Darkened Sinaiticus? - 15:29
    #3) King James, Sinaiticus and the New World Order - 12:12
    #4) Is the Sinaiticus Origin a Lie? - 10:04
    #5) Why You Can't Trust Sinaiticus - Part 1 - 6:17
    #6) Coloring the Truth - Sinaiticus - Part 2 - 11:19
    #7) What Part is Scripture? - Part 3 - 14:33
    #8) Deleted on Purpose - Mark 16:9-20 - Sinaiticus - Part 4 - 11:33
    #9 Is That Your Best Job? - Sinaiticus - Part 5 - 10:45
    #10) Uniquely Bad - Sinaiticus - Part 6 - 12:15
    #11) How Old Is It Really? - Sinaiticus - Part 7 - 21:44
    #12) What Did Constantine Want? - Sinaiticus - Part 8 - 14:48
    #13) Sinaiticus and the Zombie Apocalypse - Sinaiticus - Part 9 - 12:00
    #14 It's a Job - Sinaiticus - Part 10 - 12:53
    #15 No Doctrine Affected? - Sinaiticus - Part 11 - 12:03
    #16 Prove It - 4 Ways You Can Tell A Manuscript Is A Fake - Sinaiticus - Part 12 - 21:36
    #17 I Trusted Them - Sinaiticus - Part 13 - 12:11
    #18 How Did That Get There? - Sinaiticus - Part 14 - 16:15
    #19 Origen-al Sin - Sinaiticus - Part 15 - 18:46
    #20 3 Big Mistakes of Textual Critics - Sinaiticus - Part 16 - 10:50
    #21 Sinaiticus Coincidences - Sinaiticus - Part 17 - 16:41
    #22 What Happened to Sinaiticus? - Sinaiticus - Part 18 - 6:26
    #23 Does Simonides' Story Make Sense?- Sinaiticus - Part 19 - 17:20

    The Big Picture - The Evidence - Part 1 - 37:04
    In case I get poisoned by a Jesuit in the next few days, at least I have managed to post up what I have found out ;-)

  2. Default

    More from Vigilant Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Sky at Morning
    Do we have conclusive proof that Contantine Simonides was involved in the production of the manuscript that became Codex Siniaticus?

    In his vlog, "The Sinaiticus Smoking Gun?", David Daniels points out three strong pieces of evidence that have convinced him that Constantine Simonides was involved in creating the manuscript between 1839 and 1841 at Mount Athos.

    26 - The Sinaiticus Smoking Gun - Sept 26, 2016
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjOhDJ5HKo



    1. Spyridon Paulou Lampros published a two volume catalog of the Greek manuscripts on Mount Athos in 1895 and 1890. This catalog shows that Constantine Simonides, his uncle Benedict, and the monk Kallinikos Monachos were all present on Mt. Athos, at Panteleimon monastery. Simonides and Kallinikos are even shown to have been working on the same project at the same time.

    This catalog also confirms the very existence of Kallinikos, who wrote a letter in 1862 from Alexandria, Egypt, declaring that Simonides himself was the scribe of the manuscript which was later taken by Tischendorf from the Sinai monastery. Kallinikos not only accused Tischendorf of stealing part of the manuscript ("perusing and reperusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it"), but also of applying lemon juice to the remainder of the manuscript to cause it to look older ("to weaken the freshness of the letters").

    2. The text of The Shepherd of Hermas in Codex Sinaiticus is almost identical to the text that Simonides published.

    It turns out that the text of the Epistle of Barnabas in Sinaiticus is practically identical to the text published by Simonides, when corrected by the footnotes he included from the text published by Gaspareos.

    The Barnabas text in Sinaiticus also contains little correction notes all through the text. When the main text is corrected with these notes it matches the main text that Simonides published!

    So it is clear that the two main texts are linked by a set of published corrections! Simonides possessed the main text AND the corrections to create the Barnabas text of Sinaiticus.

    3. Constantine Simonides claimed that he had written some identifying notes into the text. These notes should prove that he penned the codex. One of these notes (acrostics) was supposed to be written in the margin of the text at Genesis 24. Unfortunately, the margin, as well as other pieces of this page are MISSING. Could it be that these pieces were destroyed on purpose to obliterate the identifying marks?

  3. Default

    This will be tweaked.

    Vigilant Citizen
    Post #1, 2018
    https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/th...1/#post-104176

  4. Default

    This was post #1 .. will it paste in super-large?

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Sky at Morning]Do we have conclusive proof that Contantine Simonides was involved in the production of the manuscript that became Codex Siniaticus?

    In his vlog, "The Sinaiticus Smoking Gun?", David Daniels points out three strong pieces of evidence that have convinced him that Constantine Simonides was involved in creating the manuscript between 1839 and 1841 at Mount Athos.

    So many times the question of the authenticity of the Bible seems to come up in these forums. From people feeling that an original, more gnostic Christianity has been whitewashed and moved away from, to others who feel that certain important texts have been removed by the powers that be. What of the "Book of Barnabas", the woman caught in the act of adultery, the ending of the Gospel of Mark? Which texts can we really rely on? Do we need to stick with the KJV or ditch it for Bibles based on the Revised Version? When I was growing up, and growing in the faith I had paraphrases with plenty of pictures in. At university, I had "The Message", the Good News Bible, the Amplified Bible, the NKJV and the NIV.
    After a while I started to notice the odd verse where the end was missing where I had expected something more. Sometimes there would be a gap where a whole verse was gone! What was going on? Why so much difference? It turned out much of the controversy turned on which manuscripts were considered "oldest and best".

    Before you think this is a typical "KJV only" thread, I need to say that I grew in the faith and understood the Gospel from versions that contain phrases as incongruous as "as above, so below" in the Lords Prayer (the message), "woe to you drunken bums" (the Living Bible or were more notable for their artwork than their text! (The Good News Bible). With all their faults, I could still see the big picture. The problem came in getting into the fine detail...

    [ATTACH=full]5757[/ATTACH]

    Prompted by questions from [USER=234]@Kung Fu[/USER] and [USER=243]@Etagloc[/USER] I made it my business to look into the grounds for their questions and doubts. Was Bart Ehrman right? Were the sad looking "liberals" I grew up avoiding party to some tragic
    [QUOTE="Red Sky at Morning, post: 105154, member: 150
    Which Constantine should we believe?!

    If you have ever watched a perfomance Shakespeare's Richard III and seen the ill-fated English King portrayed, you might remember the hunchback and withered arm, along with a series of crimes attributed to him...


    [ATTACH=full]5868[/ATTACH]


    Of course, history is often written by the victor, in this case the new Yorkist King of England (and patron of Shakespeare!).
    https://www.historyextra.com/period/...t-richard-iii/

    In the search for the truth in the authenticity of the Codex Sinaiticus, the good name and testimony of Tischendorf and Simonides was called into question. The establishment backed Tischendorf - but should they have done?

    David Daniels looked into how reliable a witness Simonides was - he was initially inclined to think he was a genius forget but was that the truth, or just another "Richard III" tale?









    So much is built on it! It lends authenticity to other "alternate" readings and excluded apocryphal writings.

    The Codex Sinaiticus has only very recently been available for scrutiny, and that is when the controversy began.

    Searching further, I came across a playlist that represented perhaps a year and a half of research by the author and other contributors into the authenticity of this manuscript and the story of how it came to be regarded as such a cornerstone of textual criticism. I will post that up as a separate posting, as it has absorbed me for the best part of a week.

    The ongoing research into this is published at http://sinaiticus.net


    1. Spyridon Paulou Lampros published a two volume catalog of the Greek manuscripts on Mount Athos in 1895 and 1890. This catalog shows that Constantine Simonides, his uncle Benedict, and the monk Kallinikos Monachos were all present on Mt. Athos,
    at Panteleimon monastery. Simonides and Kallinikos are even shown to have been working on the same project at the same time.


    This catalog also confirms the very existence of Kallinikos, who wrote a letter in 1862 from Alexandria, Egypt, declaring that Simonides himself was the scribe of the manuscript which was later taken by Tischendorf from the Sinai monestary. Kallinikos not only accused Tischendorf of stealing part of the manuscript ("perusing and reperusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it"), but also of applying lemon juice to the remainder of the manuscript to cause it to look older ("to weaken the freshness of the letters").

    2. The text of The Shepherd of Hermas in Codex Sinaiticus is almost identical to the text that Simonides published.

    It turns out that the text of the Epistle of Barnabas in Sinaiticus is practically identical to the text published by Simonides, when corrected by the footnotes he included from the text published by Gaspareos.

    The Barnabas text in Sinaiticus also contains little correction notes all through the text. When the main text is corrected with these notes it matches the main text that Simonides published!

    So it is clear that the two main texts are linked by a set of published corrections! Simonides possessed the main text AND the corrections to create the Barnabas text of Sinaiticus.

    3. Constantine Simonides claimed that he had written some identifying notes into the text. These notes should prove that he penned the codex. One of these notes (acrostics) was supposed to be written in the margin of the text at Genesis 24. Unfortunately, the margin, as well as other pieces of this page are MISSING. Could it be that these pieces were destroyed on purpose to obliterate the identifying marks?[/QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Sky at Morning, post: 104176, member: 150
    So many times the question of the authenticity of the Bible seems to come up in these forums.


    From people feeling that an original, more gnostic Christianity has been whitewashed and moved away from, to others who feel that certain important texts have been removed by the powers that be.


    What of the "Book of Barnabas", the woman caught in the act of adultery, the ending of the Gospel of Mark?


    Which texts can we really rely on? Do we need to stick with the KJV or ditch it for Bibles based on the Revised Version?


    When I was growing up, and growing in the faith I had paraphrases with plenty of pictures in. At university, I had "The Message", the Good News Bible, the Amplified Bible, the NKJV and the NIV.


    After a while I started to notice the odd verse where the end was missing where I had expected something more. Sometimes there would be a gap where a whole verse was gone!


    What was going on? Why so much difference? It turned out much of the controversy turned on which manuscripts were considered "oldest and best".


    Before you think this is a typical "KJV only" thread, I need to say that I grew in the faith and understood the Gospel from versions that contain phrases as incongruous as "as above, so below" in the Lords Prayer (the message), "woe to you drunken bums" (the Living Bible or were more notable for their artwork than their text! (The Good News Bible). With all their faults, I could still see the big picture. The problem came in getting into the fine detail...





    Prompted by questions from [USER=234]@Kung Fu[/USER] and [USER=243]@Etagloc[/USER] I made it my business to look into the grounds for their questions and doubts. Was Bart Ehrman right? Were the sad looking "liberals" I grew up avoiding party to some tragic truths about the substance of what I had been brought up to believe?


    A week ago I started reading a very interesting book...





    Surely not?!

    So much is built on it! It lends authenticity to other "alternate" readings and excluded apocryphal writings.

    The Codex Sinaiticus has only very recently been available for scrutiny, and that is when the controversy began.

    Searching further, I came across a playlist that represented perhaps a year and a half of research by the author and other contributors into the authenticity of this manuscript and the story of how it came to be regarded as such a cornerstone of textual criticism. I will post that up as a separate posting, as it has absorbed me for the best part of a week.

    The ongoing research into this is published at http://sinaiticus.net

Posting Permissions

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