Steven Avery
Administrator
Good thread!
Steven Avery
Top contributor
Grantley Robert McDonald - there are numerous evidences.
There is no provenance and the later cover stories are wacky fabrications, contradicted even by the Tisch correspondence.
The phenomenally good condition of parchment and ink, with supposedly 1500 years of ongoing heavy use, is a red mark.
Amazingly, not one word, barely one letter, of the NT, is lost.
The colouring and staining corroborates the amazing 1862-63 exposure that the manuscript had been artificially aged. However, the 1844 section left before the tampering so it is consistent pale without stains.
The Simonides account, the main alternate holds up very well on examination, with various historical corroborations.
There is much, much more, for those interested!
Grantley Robert McDonald
Top contributor
Steven Avery Spencer, you know that many people dispute this evidence and its interpretation, but if you are correct, it would be a sensational discovery. You would be doing everyone a service if you were to set out your ideas and evidence clearly and publish them as an article in an academic journal or as a book with a reputable university press, so that they can be assessed by others on their merits. That's how knowledge advances. If your ideas stand up to professional scrutiny, your name would go down in history. If not, then it might be time to refine your arguments or abandon them and spend your time on something more useful. Until you give expert readers the chance to assess your ideas properly, they can only remain in the realm of unsubstantiated opinion.
Steven Avery
Top contributor
Grantley Robert McDonald - while your idea is reasonable, “professional scrutiny” can just be a rabbit trail.
e.g. - The myths of evolution and virology have held on by a cabal following the $. Go jabs go. (Ask to see the “science” that proved that dead/inactive “viruses” hijack cell replication functions, a very extraordinary claim.)
And “textual criticism” (considered as philology by some) is fraught with similar difficulties, and the Sinaiticus faux scholarship is “deeply entrenched”, to a large extent the textcrits drag the “palaeographers” around by their noses.
By far the hardest element for marks in a con is the admission that they erred, that they were fooled. The follow-up to the British Museum, 1933, as an example.
The last couple of years have been wonderful learning experiences, often contra argumentation online turns out, ironically, to be a big help. And interesting new sources have arisen in places like Greece (a new biography of Simonides confirming important elements) and Bulgaria and Russia.
And some projects are in process with a gentleman with a special set of (Greek) skills. They may help me put together a book in 2024, (perhaps 2025) building on the publications and videos of David W. Daniels. Specific sub-sections may be worthwhile Journal submissions.
At the moment we have one focus on reviewing the spots where Codex Claromontanus fits as a homoeoteleuton source for Sinaiticus in the Pauline Epistles. An idea very difficult for the “textual scholars” to even review sensibly since it does not fit their narrative. One of many spots where they stumble and bumble..
Remember, they are ducking scientific tests. They are ducking even a direct comparison of an 1844 Leipzig leaf with an 1859 London leaf. A lot of pride, prestige and, ultimately, $ is on the line.
The textcrits cannot consider the possibility that their vaunted Critical Text, the Westcott-Hort recension, is built largely on a sham.
Grantley Robert McDonald
Top contributor
It seems like you are getting distracted here by irrelevant side issues such as your own views about vaccination. Sinaiticus has nothing to do with vaccinations, so let's leave that aside. Instead, let's see your theories about Sinaiticus set out in order, and then everyone can judge for themselves whether or not they hold water. You have collected your material. Now it's time for you to present it. This is absolutely crucial. If a lawyer prepared their briefs at home, but then refused to show up at court to present and argue their case in the established way, they would have no right to complain when their case was dismissed. What's more, the venue of discussion is crucial. A lawyer has to appear and argue in court. It's no use for them to prepare their brief and then to present it by shouting at random people in the park. In the same way, a biblical scholar has to present their work in scholarly fora, i.e. academic journals or books published by an academic press. Otherwise it's not biblical scholarship – it's just shouting in the park. On the other hand, if you can prove your case with hard evidence, not just suspicions and insinuations, then you will be doing us all a great service. I look forward to seeing your book and/or articles. I'm quite prepared to accept your conclusions if they are cogent.
Grantley, my friend ...
If you do not understand that the jabs are a con, and a very dangerous one at that, even more so for young ones and women, you are quite unlikely to understand that Sinaiticus is a con.
You are simply too gullible.
And I will write simply to express the truth, which is far more significant than convincing ossified pseudo-scholarship, largely unbelievers, atheists, gnostics, lefties and other ilkies.
If sub-topics are appropriate for peer review, that is fine, they can be submitted, as long as it does not have too many down-sides of time, ownership, distribution, etc.
Those folks in the textual land developed a Sinaiticus date "consensus" without even examining the manuscript!
How dumb can you get?
Marks.
Then they ride with their deeply entrenched scholarship, without properly studying that which they false accepted.
You do not understand the dynamic. I do not blame you for that, but it is my job to inform you properly.
Steven Avery
Top contributor
Grantley Robert McDonald - there are numerous evidences.
There is no provenance and the later cover stories are wacky fabrications, contradicted even by the Tisch correspondence.
The phenomenally good condition of parchment and ink, with supposedly 1500 years of ongoing heavy use, is a red mark.
Amazingly, not one word, barely one letter, of the NT, is lost.
The colouring and staining corroborates the amazing 1862-63 exposure that the manuscript had been artificially aged. However, the 1844 section left before the tampering so it is consistent pale without stains.
The Simonides account, the main alternate holds up very well on examination, with various historical corroborations.
There is much, much more, for those interested!
Grantley Robert McDonald
Top contributor
Steven Avery Spencer, you know that many people dispute this evidence and its interpretation, but if you are correct, it would be a sensational discovery. You would be doing everyone a service if you were to set out your ideas and evidence clearly and publish them as an article in an academic journal or as a book with a reputable university press, so that they can be assessed by others on their merits. That's how knowledge advances. If your ideas stand up to professional scrutiny, your name would go down in history. If not, then it might be time to refine your arguments or abandon them and spend your time on something more useful. Until you give expert readers the chance to assess your ideas properly, they can only remain in the realm of unsubstantiated opinion.
Steven Avery
Top contributor
Grantley Robert McDonald - while your idea is reasonable, “professional scrutiny” can just be a rabbit trail.
e.g. - The myths of evolution and virology have held on by a cabal following the $. Go jabs go. (Ask to see the “science” that proved that dead/inactive “viruses” hijack cell replication functions, a very extraordinary claim.)
And “textual criticism” (considered as philology by some) is fraught with similar difficulties, and the Sinaiticus faux scholarship is “deeply entrenched”, to a large extent the textcrits drag the “palaeographers” around by their noses.
By far the hardest element for marks in a con is the admission that they erred, that they were fooled. The follow-up to the British Museum, 1933, as an example.
The last couple of years have been wonderful learning experiences, often contra argumentation online turns out, ironically, to be a big help. And interesting new sources have arisen in places like Greece (a new biography of Simonides confirming important elements) and Bulgaria and Russia.
And some projects are in process with a gentleman with a special set of (Greek) skills. They may help me put together a book in 2024, (perhaps 2025) building on the publications and videos of David W. Daniels. Specific sub-sections may be worthwhile Journal submissions.
At the moment we have one focus on reviewing the spots where Codex Claromontanus fits as a homoeoteleuton source for Sinaiticus in the Pauline Epistles. An idea very difficult for the “textual scholars” to even review sensibly since it does not fit their narrative. One of many spots where they stumble and bumble..
Remember, they are ducking scientific tests. They are ducking even a direct comparison of an 1844 Leipzig leaf with an 1859 London leaf. A lot of pride, prestige and, ultimately, $ is on the line.
The textcrits cannot consider the possibility that their vaunted Critical Text, the Westcott-Hort recension, is built largely on a sham.
Grantley Robert McDonald
Top contributor
It seems like you are getting distracted here by irrelevant side issues such as your own views about vaccination. Sinaiticus has nothing to do with vaccinations, so let's leave that aside. Instead, let's see your theories about Sinaiticus set out in order, and then everyone can judge for themselves whether or not they hold water. You have collected your material. Now it's time for you to present it. This is absolutely crucial. If a lawyer prepared their briefs at home, but then refused to show up at court to present and argue their case in the established way, they would have no right to complain when their case was dismissed. What's more, the venue of discussion is crucial. A lawyer has to appear and argue in court. It's no use for them to prepare their brief and then to present it by shouting at random people in the park. In the same way, a biblical scholar has to present their work in scholarly fora, i.e. academic journals or books published by an academic press. Otherwise it's not biblical scholarship – it's just shouting in the park. On the other hand, if you can prove your case with hard evidence, not just suspicions and insinuations, then you will be doing us all a great service. I look forward to seeing your book and/or articles. I'm quite prepared to accept your conclusions if they are cogent.
Grantley, my friend ...
If you do not understand that the jabs are a con, and a very dangerous one at that, even more so for young ones and women, you are quite unlikely to understand that Sinaiticus is a con.
You are simply too gullible.
And I will write simply to express the truth, which is far more significant than convincing ossified pseudo-scholarship, largely unbelievers, atheists, gnostics, lefties and other ilkies.
If sub-topics are appropriate for peer review, that is fine, they can be submitted, as long as it does not have too many down-sides of time, ownership, distribution, etc.
Those folks in the textual land developed a Sinaiticus date "consensus" without even examining the manuscript!
How dumb can you get?
Marks.
Then they ride with their deeply entrenched scholarship, without properly studying that which they false accepted.
You do not understand the dynamic. I do not blame you for that, but it is my job to inform you properly.
Last edited: