Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 pm
The same errors from Bill Brown continue.
Steven Avery Spenser didn't list even one.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 pm
If you want to really see his sickness in action, watch the BVDB board.
A conspiracy theorist regarding 9/11 and Sandy Hook (among other things) thinks I'M the sick one.....
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 pm
It is not just the rant and vulgarity mode, there is also a logic gap, that makes discussion a waste of time.
Hogwash. You can't fake it with me, and THAT is what bothers you. I've been waiting for THREE years now to the question on CARM regarding how you know Paul did NOT write the Epistle to the Laodiceans and TWO YEARS for you or a competent member of the SART team (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) to answer some basic questions.
If my position was as flimsy as yours, I'd avoid discussion with "but he's so mean to me," too.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 pm
His point is to simply to be a diversion from the real discussions.
Then simply ANSWER the following questions that you've avoided for two years. You call yourself a "researcher," and yet you can't even answer BASCI questions:
1) Where did David Daniels train in paleography?
2) How does the manuscript coming online in 2009 change Avery's 2011 strongly worded opinion about how if one is just familiar with the details, it's OBVIOUS that it is NOT a 19th century document?
3) How many of these scholars have ever come down on the side of saying Simonides told the truth and Sinaiticus dates to the 19th century?
4) Does ANY paleographer in the world date Sinaiticus to the 19th century?
5) Who made the accusation that the manuscript was darkened?
6) Where did Steven Avery study 'forensic history'?
7) How much study of paleography have you (note: Steven Avery) ever done?
8) Does your source Brent Nongbri have ANY papyri that he thinks are dated wrongly by 1500 years?
9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled?
10) How are they to be handled, as in 'what precautions are necessary?'
11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read?
12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed?
13) How is the lighting to be set?
14) How long did it take you to take the photographs?
15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus?
16) Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE with photographing manuscripts?
17) Do any of the OTHER two members of the SART team have any REAL experience in linguistics?
18) What are the published works of those in question 17?
19) Do the people at the CSP who host the manuscript online SAY it is an 1800s production?
20) What date then do they give it?
21) How does Steven Avery actually KNOW the manuscript at CSP is really Sinaiticus?
22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied?
23) How many experiments have you ever done on parchment?
I mean, come one. YOU KNOW that your own lack of experience of even being able to READ Greek much less date it is, in fact, relevant. And the proof is that if you DID have such experience, you'd be telling us all about how many manuscripts you had examined and HOW you made this determination. But because you lack any such experience at all, you're left with attacking others who do (as you recently did with Jacob Peterson).
There's simply some fundamental realities here:
1) I can read Sinaiticus, you cannot.
2) I have collated sections of Sinaiticus, you cannot do this.
3) Jacob Peterson and I have BOTH PHOTOGRAPHED manuscripts - you have not.
And that's why you don't answer the basic questions - because they will reveal how little you actually know about this subject.
But you've never done the legwork at all. You have looked at a couple of pictures online, combined them with an active imagination and kaboom! The Internet contains your dumpsters of misinformation in an incredible combination of the Dunning-Krueger effect meeting Sturgeon's Law.
All anyone reading this needs to know about Steven Avery Spenser's (his real name that he hides) ability to do research is this insane claim he made in 2011:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC- ... opics/4748
"St. Catherine's monastery still maintains the importance of a letter,
typewritten in 1844 with an original signature of Tischendorf confirming
that he borrowed those leaves."
Yes, folks, this "researcher" actually said that there was a typewritten note at a time typewriters were in their embryonic stage at best. Why? Because he didn't bother to actually research the claim because he isn't interested in facts,he's interested in what affirms his presuppositions.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 pm
Using his own style of reactive rant posting.
A guy who commits ad verecundiam and circular argumentation (KJV Onlyism) every day of his life is a self-appointed expert on logic.
This is only amusing if you've never interacted with the guy.
Let's face it: he hasn't done anything but used his imagination and then adopted the facts that fit his assumptions.