Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
I am not following you. I say the stains on the Brit contiguous pages are relevant, and your criticism is that they are relevant?
It shouldn't be too hard to follow, "Steven Avery refuses to answer questions that overturn his delusional fantasy."
Even an idiot like you knows what is being said.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
There were no explanations given, there have only been hyper-conjectural speculations of how some people think the colour (not the stain) differences could have arisen. A careful look at those speculations shows them to be quite absurd.
The most absurd comes from Steven Avery Spenser, who thinks that a phantom named Kallinikos was standing right there and saw Tischendorf steal it twice AND watched him color it sometime after it was actually colored (per Simonides) in 1852.
Wh
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
There is nothing difficult about the history that has Mt. Athos creating a replica/forgery c. 1840 and its making its way to Sinai.
Yeah, I hear that entire codices have been picked up in hurricanes on Athos and deposited on Sinai. Which one did this?
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
There is superb evidence supporting the history. I am always happy to go over the historical forensics.
You're too chicken to come up with an actual explanation for anything. Quite frankly, you're a miserable old man grasping for immortality before the long dirt nap, a guy who feigns accomplishment by posting his theological feces all over the Internet as mind-numbing fertilizer.
If I wrote an article about Swahili it would be ridiculously stupid. Why? Because I've never studied it.
Same goes for your musings on Greek and TC.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
I'll even go over your joke presentation if it will help you understand the history.
You're such a brave and condescending snot online and yet you avoid debate for the simple reason even you know you're full of shit.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
Similarly, your “criticizing” spmething is supposed to demonstrste something?
Plus, they were not outer pages. The Brits rebound them as a unit, making them all inside.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
Uspensky saw a single manuscript in 1845.
Which he also dated to the FIFTH century, even though for some reason you avoid this like the plague.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
It is quite obvious that Tischendorf saw the same thing in 1844 and stole five intact (80 pages) quires plus 6 more contiguous pages. Even some of the regular scholars acknowledge that the Tischendorf 1844 story is not trustworthy.
The same scholars say Simonides is lying, too. Cherry picking again.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
Especially if they have read Uspensky and also the letter to his brother Julius in 1844.
Folks, this English grammar illiterate attended Cal. Why would Uspensky write a letter to his brother Julius in 1844 about what he saw in 1845?
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
The Tischendorf discovery story was a blatant fabrication, including the saved by fire silliness that he came up with fifteen years later to gain political cover, which still dupes many today.
Which proves nothing about your nonsense, though....
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
GIGO. And even if not true, it would not explain the white parchment in Leipzig compared to the yellow in the British Library. Nor would it explain the Brit-only stains. Nor would it explain the phenomenally good condition of both sections.
You have yet to explain how Tischendorf stained a manuscript in 1852.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
Tischendorf as a liar, fabricating the discovery story, is now a simple fact. (That by itself, however, does not prove the manuscript as non-authentic.)
If you really believed this, you'd call Simonides a liar, too, instead of trying to minimize it with synonyms like "fudged."