Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
This is just one of about 5 distinct hand-wave attempts that do not address the evidence, by attempting to nibble at an edge. It is humorous the variety of attempts.

E.g. A reference to a stain on one of the 4 contiguous Brit pages clearly negates nothing. The fact of uneven !859 stained and streaky pages is one of the anomalies.
It's you who presented exactly those stains I linked to try and prove something in this thread, so of course my criticism is relevant. In and itself, those color differences are meaningless. In order to make a story out of it, you have to wave away the explanations that were given for those differences. To make this work, you have to undermine the credibility of the scholars involved, and that's what most of your efforts in this thread are about.

You saw my small attempt at summarizing your whole story as humorous, but it's only humorous because of the story you have presented in this thread. You may have changed around the possible actors once in a while, but my summary was pretty much on point. Yes, the whole story looks ridiculous when you look at all of it, so there's no surprise that it looks funny as soon as you are presented with the whole package.
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.
Yes, and what the Brits did matters how? You know that the manuscript was in parts that were kept in different parts of the monastery when the manuscript was retrieved. That's the explanation given, and of course it would explain the differences. To make this go away, you have to paint Tischendorf as a liar and ignore all later parts of the manuscript that were still found in other parts of the library in later years. Most of this thread comprises of attempts to make this explanation go away.

Maestroh
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: absurdity? - Tischendorf showed up in Sinai on the one day after 1500 years when the ms. was being burned

Post by Maestroh » Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:47 am

Claims he wants a discussion, ignores every fact that refutes his fantasy....
Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:10 pm
Anyway, I responded to that one point because you had a false scholarship integrity accusation implied. This seems to be your methodology, I would prefer if you really worked with substance, as, if I remember, occurred occasionally in earlier counterpoint.

And I considered the post as a whole sort of humorous silliness. Stretching yourself to try to make a non-point. e.g. We can easily laugh at the theory that Tischendorf showed up in the one day in 1500 years when the ms. was being burned. And you carefully ignore all the amazing supposed coincidences, like how did Simonides and Kallinikos know about the 1843 theft and the colouring that we can easily see today.
Right back to the security blanket of redundancy - just repeat what was said before, kinda like a programmed robot.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
Or the amazing coincidence that Simonides had published Greek Barnabas and Hermas editions -- before Tischendorf got all choked up about their being in the Sinaiticus ms. hmmm .. along with the convoluted Tischendorf linguistic retraction about the Hermas date.
I've also pointed out his Donaldson appeal is about a century out of date (Donaldson claimed there were some Greek words not found that - whoops - have turned up since he did his study, but oh well.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
Or the fortuitious confirmation of the Athos crew working together in the right place and time, confirmed in 1895-1900 in the Spyridon Lamprou catalog.
Actually, this doesn't prove anything, either.

If I'm to believe this then I have to believe Bendict was alive even when SIMONIDES HIMSELF said he was dead.......and this proves nothing in regards to Sinaiticus anyway.

Maestroh
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: restricted access - scholarship with the tampered Tischendorf facsimile

Post by Maestroh » Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:54 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:20 pm
Of course the Sinaiticus ms. was not under Tischendorf's control after he passed.
Which makes your claim that everyone fell in line behind Tischendorf laughably absurd, particularly since these same folks disagree on points he made (so much for your theories)
Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:20 pm
However, the Libraries restricted access,
So it WAS a conspiracy.......???????

And, of course, they restrict access to almost EVERY manuscript so this doesn't prove anything, either.

Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:20 pm
and I have some of the information on that here:

"The oldest Bible in the world is kept in Leipzig like a treasure. It is so valuable that nobody can see the parchment"
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 2#post1492

the British Library allowed only four scholars to inspect the Codex Sinaiticus leaves in 25 years!
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... n-25-years
The British Library also put it online so sit at home idiots like yourself can view it. But yeah, they didn't notice what a hack at his computer noticed, right?
Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:20 pm
In Russia, the polymath scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) did get physical access in the early 1900s, and reported that it really could not be very old, max about 600 years, based on the superb condition. Which you can see today in the BBC video and the CSP pics.
What we can also see from the BBC video and CSP pics.....is the very same source advocating a fourth century date.
Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:20 pm
It really has been quite a shell game.

Your little game with Sinaiticus? Absolutely.

Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:20 pm
There never was any real palaeography, the faux date was set by textual politics.
And yet you know nothing about paleography, have never studied it, but think YOU can date the manuscript......
Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:20 pm
And few scholars have handled the manuscript.
Few scholars handle ANY manuscripts, you toenail eating moron.
Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:20 pm
And the key issue of comparing Leipzig and the British Library was virtually impossible .. until the wonderful 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project!
"They kept it from us until they showed it to us!!!"

DO YOU NOT SEE WHAT A COMPLETE AND UTTERLY ILLOGICAL FOOL YOU LOOK LIKE? ARE YOU THIS LACKING IN COMMON SENSE???
Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:20 pm
Even the 2011-2012 $$$ Hendrickson and British Library printed edition was tampered - to hide the colour distinction.
Which only proves it was the film in the first place.

What you now have to do is travel to both places and see for yourself.

Why don't you?

Could it be because you're AFRAID of what YOU will find?

See how that level of nonsense works?

Maestroh
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:14 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
This is just one of about 5 distinct hand-wave attempts that do not address the evidence, by attempting to nibble at an edge. It is humorous the variety of attempts.
Don't confuse lack of respect for your lack of logic for lack of knowledge of the larger subject.
Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
E.g. A reference to a stain on one of the 4 contiguous Brit pages clearly negates nothing. The fact of uneven !859 stained and streaky pages is one of the anomalies.
Ah, we now have a bozo who cannot date anything accurately but HE KNOWS that a stain was put on a manuscript in 1859.
Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
Similarly, your “criticizing” something is supposed to demonstrste something?
Oh......the irony.....
Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
Plus, they were not outer pages. The Brits rebound them as a unit, making them all inside. The Russians kept them laid flat. I’m prety sure the Germans have been similar.
1) Morons use the passive voice to cloak deceit.
2) "I'm pretty sure" is just Avery-speak for, "I have no idea whatsoever, but it helps me score points in my ongoing eternal hate-fest against everyone else in the world."
Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
They ignore the pages that are at the other library.
You mean the ones they put in the whole volume?
Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
Try to think it through. Thanks. This is rather simple, so I would appreciate an acknowledgment that you had erred on that one.
Again, I don't know what psychological issues plague your insistence on deciding to be a rabid dog towards people online - but until the day you become as humble as you demand others to be, expect to be treated like the arrogant poster you post as.
Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
Sometimes, I think you just go fishing to say .. something ... anything .. as an irrelevant diversion.
None of us are the ones trying to claim Tischendorf colored the pages after Simonides said they were colored......because none of us are married to this nonsense.
Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
The phenomenally good condition, the off-white 1844 Leipzig, the streaky yellow 1859, matching the colouring accusations of 1862-64, the historical coincidences like Simonides doing editions of Barnabas and Hermas, are all among the elephants in the room for which you try to find a diversion.
Once again - and we're in the territory of several years now - Steven Avery continues to pretend he is presenting facts. "The colouring accusations" don't even match up with each other, and when I called you out on this, you just repeated it like a brainwashed fool.
Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
This is simply not a 1650 year old manuscript, handled for centuries in the hot and dry desert.
A reminder that Steven Avery has no expertise whatsoever in any related biblical discipline - and is dependent upon a KJVO film maker for this entire nonsense.

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am
E.g. A reference to a stain on one of the 4 contiguous Brit pages clearly negates nothing. The fact of uneven !859 stained and streaky pages is one of the anomalies.
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
It's you who presented exactly those stains I linked to try and prove something in this thread, so of course my criticism is relevant..
I am not following you. I say the stains on the Brit contiguous pages are relevant, and your criticism is that they are relevant?
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
IIn and itself, those color differences are meaningless. In order to make a story out of it, you have to wave away the explanations that were given for those differences.
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.
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
To make this work, you have to undermine the credibility of the scholars involved, and that's what most of your efforts in this thread are about.
This is simply a false statement.
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
You saw my small attempt at summarizing your whole story as humorous, but it's only humorous because of the story you have presented in this thread. You may have changed around the possible actors once in a while, but my summary was pretty much on point. Yes, the whole story looks ridiculous when you look at all of it, so there's no surprise that it looks funny as soon as you are presented with the whole package..
There is nothing difficult about the history that has Mt. Athos creating a replica/forgery c. 1840 and its making its way to Sinai. There is superb evidence supporting the history. I am always happy to go over the historical forensics. I'll even go over your joke presentation if it will help you understand the history.
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.
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
Yes, and what the Brits did matters how?
I was simply refuting your totally false assertion that the contiguous pages would be outer pages. Try to follow the conversation.
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
You know that the manuscript was in parts that were kept in different parts of the monastery when the manuscript was retrieved.
Uspensky saw a single manuscript in 1845. 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. Especially if they have read Uspensky and also the letter to his brother Julius in 1844. 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.
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
YThat's the explanation given, and of course it would explain the differences. .
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.
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
To make this go away, you have to paint Tischendorf as a liar.
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.)
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
and ignore all later parts of the manuscript that were still found in other parts of the library in later years. Most of this thread comprises of attempts to make this explanation go away.
You are confused. Nothing is ignored.

Ulan
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:44 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
Yes, and what the Brits did matters how?
I was simply refuting your totally false assertion that the contiguous pages would be outer pages. Try to follow the conversation.
You are employing rhetorical tricks again to deflect. Your tactics are quite transparent, as your next paragraph shows that you are well aware of what I was referring to:
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
You know that the manuscript was in parts that were kept in different parts of the monastery when the manuscript was retrieved.
Uspensky saw a single manuscript in 1845. 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. Especially if they have read Uspensky and also the letter to his brother Julius in 1844. 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.
If Tischendorf stole part of the manuscript in 1844, it wasn't a single manuscript in 1845. Also, you forget about the point that the monks had been collecting all the different parts from the monastery in the time between. You also forget about those parts of the manuscript which still had been stored in different parts of the monastery up to the year 2009.

But yeah, it's the same tactics as always from you. You isolate single sentences some people said (here Uspensky) to give them a weight those sentences don't have. It's the same with all those "white as snow" descriptions btw., which you handle as if we were dealing with absolutes.
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 pm
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
YThat's the explanation given, and of course it would explain the differences. .
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.
Of course it would. For it not to explain the different stains, you have to assume (as a premise) that your hypothesis about the manuscript history is true, which is unlikely, not only because of the stains, which corroborate Tischendorf's version, but also because of the proven parts of manuscript history, which you have always ignored. In principle, all you wrote in your last post is just a confirmation of my statement that you have to undermine the credibility of scholars to make the explanation go away.

All in all, talking with you is mostly a waste of time, given that, at this point, you are just repeating that you are right and that I am "confused". You have decided your version of the story is true without the need to prove it, so I guess we will have to leave it at that. Have fun in your little corner of the internet.

Maestroh
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:33 am

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."

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:05 am

Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:44 am
You are employing rhetorical tricks again to deflect. Your tactics are quite transparent, as your next paragraph shows that you are well aware of what I was referring to:
There was no trick. Your comment was not even as clear as mud.

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:13 am

Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:44 am
If Tischendorf stole part of the manuscript in 1844, it wasn't a single manuscript in 1845.
Sure it was, although if you want to be absudly technical you could say that all of Sinaiticus is fragments
Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:44 am
Also, you forget about the point that the monks had been collecting all the different parts from the monastery in the time between.
A Tischendorf fabrication myth that does not have a scintilla of support evidence.
Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:44 am
You also forget about those parts of the manuscript which still had been stored in different parts of the monastery up to the year 2009..
Nothing you say makes sense. Are you talking about the New Finds of 1975 in the back dump room?
Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:44 am
But yeah, it's the same tactics as always from you. You isolate single sentences some people said (here Uspensky) to give them a weight those sentences don't have. It's the same with all those "white as snow" descriptions btw., which you handle as if we were dealing with absolutes.
Off-white is the simpler way to describe the 1844 Leipzig manuscript today, compared to the stained and streaky yellow of the British Library 1859. Uspensky is vitally important, but you simply do not know the history.
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.
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:01 am
Of course it would. For it not to explain the different stains, you have to assume (as a premise) that your hypothesis about the manuscript history is true, which is unlikely, not only because of the stains, which corroborate Tischendorf's version, but also because of the proven parts of manuscript history, which you have always ignored. In principle, all you wrote in your last post is just a confirmation of my statement that you have to undermine the credibility of scholars to make the explanation go away.
Your circular lack of logic is amusing.

Your claim that the Brit stains corroborate Tischendorf's version (while Leipzig is unstained) is one of the dumbest Sinaiticus claims anyone has made, which jumps you over a very high bar.

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:00 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:13 am
Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:44 am
Also, you forget about the point that the monks had been collecting all the different parts from the monastery in the time between.
A Tischendorf fabrication myth that does not have a scintilla of support evidence.
In fact the modern theorists went a step further. They conjectured an 1844-1845 Sinai binding. Just because they were stuck with the Tischendorf 1844 lies,

Post Reply