Steven Avery wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:10 am
So your answer is “No”.
With fuzz and buzz.
Let's see....you've now had six years.....and all I've seen are a bunch of assertions.
Incidentally, are you gonna grow a pair and actually debate the Comma Johanneum?
Or will you continue to contribute nothing more than online insults from afar?
JW:
All professional Paleographers that have studied it have concluded that Sinaiticus is early. From a Textual Criticism standpoint Sinaiticus probably has better support for early than any other Manuscript due to the layering of successively newer readings. Stephen does not appear to have any quality offsetting evidence that Sinaiticus is late. So, question for Stephen, what is your single best evidence that Sinaiticus is late?
JoeWallack wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 4:07 pmJW:
All professional Paleographers that have studied it have concluded that Sinaiticus is early.
First, can you name the professional palaeographers that have studied Sinaiticus, and were actually handling the manuscript, especially those who were looking at both sections?
Also if you do have any names, please note if they were in the employ or under contract with the owners of the manuscript sections. It would be helpful if they were independent, as was planned for the 2015 materials testing in Leipzig (that was cancelled.)
Thanks!
Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Fri Jun 05, 2020 3:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:19 pm
Hi Joe,
One point at a time.
JoeWallack wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 4:07 pmJW:
All professional Paleographers that have studied it have concluded that Sinaiticus is early.
First, can you name the professional palaeographers that have studied Sinaiticus, and were actually handling the manuscript, especially those who were looking at both sections?
Ah, but this is not necessary for YOU, right?
I mean YOUR OWN POSITION is that YOU can click a mouse online and know how old it is, so your demand for "but who handled it" is nothing short of hypocrisy.
Also if you do have any names, please note if they were in the employ or under contract with the owners of the manuscript sections.
It would be helpful if they were independent, as was planned for the 2015 materials testing in Leipzig (that was cancelled.)
Thanks!
Steven
Anyone else notice this little two-face is insisting on "independent verification" for Sinaiticus, but he's insistent on you believing "because Stone Cold said so" on who wrote the gospels????
How about you give me the names of the people who handled it (your insistence) that gave it a 19th century date?
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:33 pm However, afaik, Joshua will have nothing to do with vulgarity.
And I think Joshua would in fact like to arrange a discussion where James Snapp was the one taking the contra-authenticity position.
You're such a whiny little baby. Run all over the Net trashing people and then get kicked back hard and you turn and run like every other bully ("he's being so mean to me!")
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:35 am
Actually, you are the only "Christian:" poster I run into that is frequently vulgar. "professional palaeographers that have studied Sinaiticus".
You're the one who - for reasons known only to you - has decided to make your mark in the world insulting people and being a hypocrite to boot.
Your only problem is you're used to engaging people that won't hit you back hard.
"Christian" says a guy whose doctrine would have him burned at the stake by the very same Reformers he pretends are on his side.
I treat you the way you treat other people.
You insult people and hide behind a keyboard.
The difference in you and I is that I've offered to debate your subjects face to face, and you cower in fear, because you'd never say the stuff to people's faces that you say online.
JoeWallack wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 4:07 pmJW:
All professional Paleographers that have studied it have concluded that Sinaiticus is early.
First, can you name the professional palaeographers that have studied Sinaiticus, and were actually handling the manuscript, especially those who were looking at both sections?
Also if you do have any names, please note if they were in the employ or under contract with the owners of the manuscript sections. It would be helpful if they were independent, as was planned for the 2015 materials testing in Leipzig (that was cancelled.)
Steven Avery wrote: ↑You might want to actually see the video before giving your ho-hum genetic fallacy response .
The video is by David W. Daniels, who works with Chick Publications, who has been looking closely at these issues.
And has had a lot more insight than the textual expert-shmexperts, who have been so dense that they did not even
notice the colour distinction.
So, when a guy standing among the book stacks at a local library starts lecturing me by holding a bible open but facing the ceiling before him, which he periodically lifts up into view and then lowers below our view, all the while talking about the evil deceptions of Codex Sinaiticus, I am sorry but I just can't help but tune it out.
The video is by David W. Daniels, not Jack. I'm not vouching for either, but pointing out they're not the same.
And those may be the stacks of his library: if you read a lot, you too could have stacks like that. I found his video series very helpful, as it conveys a lot visually - the photo montage Steven posted is a prime example.
I thought the video series was very good; although it runs over a time period and shows a progression in thinking, here's the list:
There's a playlist but it had his stuff on BC Septuagint which I thought was poor.
I don't think his early speculations about the Greek players pushing a western liberal NWO agenda are accurate. I wouldn't want to underplay the fact that Tischendorf was given a private audience with the Pope *before* he found Sinaiticus, that Ste. Catherines was silent about - or participated in the fraud - and that the Jerusalem Patriach gave Tichendendorf access to its library just before they "discovered" the Codex Hierosolymitanus. That's as large an eccumenical scale as it gets.
So the question for this forum is:
What are the scriptural text changes introduced by Sinaticus, in conjunction with Codex Hierosolymitanus and Vaticanus, that they needed to have in place in order to push an agenda? They used these codices as a pretext to replace every bible on the planet.
If we can see the pattern, maybe we can deduce the agenda.