Begins with the condescension so let's see where this goes......
The problem with dolts like yourself is this:
IF SIMONIDES CLAIMED HE WAS ON SINAI IN 1852 AND SAW A COMPLETE MANUSCRIPT THAT HAD THE COLOR ALTERED....but
a) wasn't on Sinai in 1852
b) didn't see a complete manuscript (he only mentions the dedication being pulled before you go back to your old tricks)
then he didn't see the so-called color change, either.....
And you're intelligent enough to know this, which is why you go on the attack against Tischendorf...
Well duh.Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 amTischendorf rather brazenly lied about his 1844 theft, as an example, including the 1859 creative fabrication that he had saved the leaves from fire, he had permission to take them, etc. That alone similarly does not prove that the manuscript is modern.
This is a circular argument, speaking of logic. It ASSUMES your nonsensical paradigm about someone coloring the manuscript is true.
Yes, the game Steven Avery has been playing since 2007. But don't worry...
As you've just promised to answer, I will ask you the same series of questions yet again you have refused to answer. Either answer them or admit you lied, I don't care which.
OK, so there's no evidence at Sinai....which means there's NO EVIDENCE he ever saw the manuscript there.....speaking of Logic 101...
Which makes his entire claim libelous.....
Such a catalog....from 1895 mind you.....does not prove he was THERE ON THAT DAY, and only a complete idiot would say it does.
After all, you yourself cite Farrer.....and Farrer tells us:
"..one has only to refer to Lampros' Catalogue of the Mount Athos MSS to find Benedict's name appended to several MSS, and to one as late as 1844 (though Simonides gave 1840 as the year of his death", Farrer, 1907: 61).
So according to YOUR LOGIC....Benedict was "on Mount Athos" WORKING on a specific MS in 1844......
yet.......the one thing everyone agrees whether pro or con-Simonides....is Benedict died in 1840.
Now....in the conspiracy theory riddled nonsense you spout, maybe you'll tell us Benedict rose from the dead or come up with some other creative way to get out of this noose that makes sense only to the guilty.
But the simple truth of the matter is that a catalog compiled in 1895 provides NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of whom was there WHEN.
And even you know this, which is why your chosen route of argument is to shout louder and hope nobody notices.
Dude - there is a reason Simonides NEVER PRODUCED A SINGLE EYEWITNESS to this but instead forged lettered he claimed were those of eyewitnesses.....and you know what that reason is.
I just gave Farrer careful examination, and this simply doesn't support your nonsense either.
Well so you say.
But we never once heard from any Kallinikos, ever.
We got some letters from a forger that CLAIMED TO BE letters from Kallinikos, but we never had a human being come forward and actually make this charge, and the reason is quite obvious. The notion that Kallinikos was "on the spot" and "saw" Tischendorf take out parts in 1844 (but never mentioned it), "saw" him coloring it (in 1844 presumably.....before it was white in 1850 somehow).......and "saw" him steal the rest of it in 1859 but never spoke up until the last moment is laugahble.
Which they were....you keep ignoring that part.....you keep pretending that didn't happen....
Nah, he would have just claimed they forged it.
I'm listening to a blowhard with ZERO experience with manuscripts tell me something he saw on TV.
Pro wrestling is real, right?
Of course you do - you're a conspiracy theorist so this isn't surprising.
You think the moon landing was fake, don't you?
It's amazing how a hack like yourself is such a know-it-all about it while those actually working with the manuscript are all a bunch of idiots in your view.Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 amMore people were learning about the amazing condition of the ms. after 2009. "Phenomenally good condition" said Helen Shenton. It was becoming clear that tests would likely give embarrassing results. (These tests, like chemical spectrum analysis, and many more, are far more effective than C-14.)
But it also is Oliver Stone level thinking. "A bunch of these folks and none of them will let the cat out of the bag."
We had a President who supposedly was heading up a murder squad of his previous critics yet couldn't prevent the world from finding out what his chubby intern was doing with a cigar........and you actually BELIEVE this nonsense you're spouting?
So let's use some logic here....
According to YOU, man who has never been in the same room with Sinaiticus.......
even though you had plenty of scholars for years who:
a) had seen both parts of the manuscript (it's not as difficult as you wish to pretend)
b) knew the tales of Simonides
.....it never dawned on a single person, "Wow, these look like two different manuscripts!!"
Are you REALLY this dumb?
But so far even in this thread all we've seen is:
a) Simonides lied about going seeing it in 1852 on Sinai (so.....when did he see it?)
b) Kallinikos was little more than a name Simonides affixed to some letters
I mean here's the problem:
if Simonides didn't see it in 1852...WHEN DID HE SEE IT?????
If he lied about seeing it in 1852 (he did) on Sinai (he did).....then he was also lying about seeing it colored then (you can't see something colored if you don't actually see it).....which means he never saw it.......
(If you have any EVIDENCE he did and when, please produce something other than "this book compiled in 1895 proves a guy was on this spot in 1841".....)
No, YOU just found out about it.
Did YOU do this? Can you prove this? Keep in mind we were given a bunch of vague generalities, and YOU claim things for Simonides even he was never stupid enough to claim.
No, the only ones being played are movie maker Chris Pinto and his truckling sycophants.
You failed to provide one.
1844 - Tischendorf takes CFA on first Sinai trip
1850 - Uspenski supposedly sees it white
1852 - "In 1852, I saw it there again myself...I examined the manuscript, and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have..." (Simonides fails to note that a chunk of it is missing - because he wasn't actually there and didn't actually see it)
1853 - Tischendorf makes second trip to Sinai (meaning that even if it was colored, he couldn't have done it)
1859 - Tischendorf makes third trip to Sinai and leaves with Aleph
2018 - David Daniels writes a book (endorsed by yourself no less) and tells us: "when he (Tischendorf) got the Sinaiticus to Cairo in 1859, he figured out it was a fake...So he came upon a plan. He (Tischendorf) darkened Sinaiticus with, maybe lemon juice..." (295)
(Uh, why would he need to darken something in 1859 that was already darkened in 1852??????)
2018 (Feb 20) -
Steven Avery tells us:
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 2#post1032
The exact time span would be 1850 to 1859, and it was done by Tischendorf and/or people working with him, maybe at one time, maybe in spurts.
But Simonides says it was done by 1852........given that Tischendorf DID NOT FIND OUT (per Daniels) until 1859 it was a fake....
a) why would it be colored in 1852?
b) why would anyone be helping him? (the Avery Reaches Oliver Stone Level of Conspiracy Theory)
Which is how I know this whole thing is a nonsensical conspiracy theory.