When you turn to Mark 16:9-20 in most modern Bibles, it's got a note, a thick line, a separate heading, and/or a footnote that says it doesn't belong; don't trust it. Why? Out of 620 manuscripts that contain Mark's gospel, 618 of them have those verses. That's all 600 minuscules (that's lower case letters), all 15 uncials (that's upper case letters), and 3 of 5 codices (you know, "big books"). Only 2 of the 620 leave out those verses: The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. 1 Chronicles 11:22 through Lamentations 2:20 This section is very white while the rest of Sinaiticus is unusually dark as if someone darkened it. (It turns out that two different guys visited the monastery the year after Tischendorf did, to see this manuscript among others after he took the CFA away. And one of them wrote about it, Porfiry Uspensky, a Russian bishop. He visited St. Catherine's in 1845, the year after Tischendorf. He said all of it was WHITE! But look at Matthew, for instance, after Tischendorf got hold of it:) There is a way to solve this accusation, all Accademia needs to do is take random small samples from the four parts of Sinaiticus and send them off for chemical analysis, then we would know for a fact if the darkening was done by age or by human forgery. This will never happen, they already know that Sinaiticus is a forgery but multiple millions of dollars of bibles have been printed based partly on Sinaiticus, so if proven to be a forgery all of those millions of dollars worth of bibles and Accademia itself would be called into question and Accademia would suffer a huge blow to their credibility. So NO way are they gonna do anything that would prove conclusively that Sinaiticus is a forgery. There is a saying "it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." It is better for Accademia to take the doubting claims that Sinaiticus is a forgery than to do chemical analysis and remove all doubt that it is indeed a forgery.
thank you... good to see a scholarly pastor being so careful about the evidence in all of this, not accepting the "scholarly consensus" hook, line and sinker... better to await possible forthcoming evidence or research on this case, ... even though it may just turn out that the modern biblical scholars are right re. Simonides and codex Sinaiticus ... but we cannot know that for sure, as of today... this podcast represents a serious contrast to certain others (like JW) who just conclude things and dismiss things without sufficient evidence... ;-) God bless and a blessed new year... :)
Have you seen the videos about sinaiticus from the channel "tricktracts"? In my opinion, he proves without a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed a forgery.
David Daniels did a bunch of work on this and I think wrote a book. This is what you get when you confuse artifacts for manuscripts. There would be too much egg on their face to address this. I was watching a KJVO debate and when one of the panelist used the word “fake” everyone on the panel picked up their heads and their eyes widened. We all know how poor the scholarship is, when we read the ESV, NIV and a like.
I have a copy of Codex Siniaticus,it’s not artifact. ITS A BIBLE. THE PROBLEM IS THE FIRST CODEXES WITH THE NT WERE DIFFERENT. THE CHURCH KNEW THAT, AND TRY TO HIDE THEM, AND COME UP WITH THE LATIN VULGATE. THE CHURCH DIDN’T WANT PEOPLE TO READ THE BIBLE. THEY EVEN BURNED THE LIBERTIES OF ALEXANDRIA. THEY ONLY WANTED A PRIEST TO READ THE BIBLE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHURCH WHICH MOST DO NOT. THE HISTORICAL CHURCH IS EVIL.
Just look into the fact that the shepherd of hermus was an integral part of the codex, more specifically, iit shared the same folded pages with revelation, ie the end of revelation and beginning of shepherd of hermus, and both were in greek. No one at that time even knew that a greek shepherd of hermus existed, however simonedes sold one to a university in germany, or the country that existed at that location back then, and it was in Greek, the story goes on , tishendorf claimed that the shepherd of hermus sold by simonedes was a fake, not knowing that the same shepherd of hermus was attached to codex sinaiticus, but then back stepped, one he found the rest, or later part of sinaiticus, etc, etc.
The biggest issue for those claiming the codex as the genuine article is the inclusion of the shepherd of Hemas, a copy of which Simonides had presented to sell earlier and which Tischendorf had cried forgery. That fact supports the view that the codex may indeed be a forgery if Tischendorf and other literary critics are to be consistent. Simonides's claim to have been at St Catherine's monastery, along with his uncle and dismissed as a lie, was also found to be a true claim. So, the timing of the find is at the least something which ought to be viewed with some suspicion. As far as I know it has never been scientifically dated due to the destructive nature of the procedure. However, one might then wonder if discovering now that it is a forgery, much like the Hitler diaries, the Piltdown man hoax, or photos of fairies were, is too much of a risk.
Since we know nothing the Bible is nothing but foolish stories, and errors and proving Siniaticus and Vatican is nothing compared to other false things the Church claims. And where is the truth when the scriptures are of things like stopping the sun, flying chariots, dead people coming out the graves, what else heaven and hell are real because nobody has ever physically come back from either to tell about it. Reality 101 just show me the real truth, and JESUS being alive before he was born ten years before, answers that?
That was a VERY good video covering the material. I want to hear more about this. I agree with the conclusion too. It seems like the intent of the modern translators is to filter out any and all biblical references to the divinity of Christ, which I think is in error. If someone is quoting from the NIV or ESV or (God forbid) the RSV, I just cringe.
You can defend the deity of the Messiah in a modern translation and more easily so in some cases. I appreciate the RSV and the NASB, it's more conservative counterpart. The philosophy of both sets of translators was to produce a literal and accessible translation. The NT was written in ancient marketplace Greek, and virtually everyone could understand it. We should have the same today.
@@conradwalker4905 - Easier to understand? Maybe. I'll grant you that having to learn the difference between "you" and "thee" is a little tricky but understanding those differences makes the passage clearer. Is the person talking to "YOU" in particular or "Y'ALL"? Old English is clearer than modern English in that regard and it conforms to the singular/plural-ness of the Greek. When the bible says, "All things were made BY him (Jesus)..." is that more or less clear than "All things were made THROUGH him..."? "Through Him" is less clear because nobody has ever said that something was made "through" something else. Their use of the language is not how the language is ever used - except in the modern versions of the bible. My car was made THROUGH the Ford Motor Company. Nobody talks like that. "Who was your car made through?" Who talks like that? Nobody - except those great Jesuit and even Atheist translators who want everybody to understand the bible better. These devils have a clear agenda and understanding God's word is not it. There are many other examples that I could identify: Philippians 2 is deliberately turned on it's head to throw off the scent. Did Jesus consider Himself equal with God or didn't He? The Textus Receptus says He did but the Gnostic texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) say the opposite. No wonder these Gnostic texts had been abandoned for hundreds of years in moldering and forgotten archives. Nobody believed that stuff until the Catholic Church and the Jesuit Counter-reformation revived them. Who let those reprobates in? Academics, that's who. Not sincere believers. I don't buy what they're selling. I know what their agenda is and I know exactly how they're pulling the wool over the eyes of all believers. I have one of the versions of the ever changing NIV on my bookshelf. I also have the NASB (actually it's an old NASV - the version before they revised it). And when I want another view of a passage, I'll flip through those things but my goto version of the bible is the KJV. It's much clearer. And don't get me started on the Old Testament. The Masoretic Text is NOT what Christ and the apostles used in the first century. They used the LXX. So even the KJV's Old Testament is tainted.
I saw the codex about 15 years ago in the British museum and was surprised how well it was preserved really good condition for a book nearly 2000 years old
Excellent presentation, this helps to understand the nature of the flesh an bones working on the authenticity of the Bible. Provenance vs Providence? Ultimately these two must agree because truth will prevail. For my own subjective speculation I will stay with Textus Receptus based on results. Although imperfect as we humans are, KJV navigated the English speaking Church in a miraculous effect and elevated western civilization to plateaus unprecedented. The Modern Era (ME vs AD not CE) has produced malicious destruction of western culture and the church resulting our present humiliating condition (of what glory would ye now boast?). I don't despair the effects of textual criticism in their own right but I bitterly resent paying for much of it with offerings that were intended to honor our Lord Jesus.
Also back in those times it was not uncommon for a15 year old to possess the ability to speak several biblical languages,write and translate the same. Todays scholars would have been no match to such a fifteen year old, heck they possess superior knowledge even at the ages of 6,7,8 etc than most alleged scholars today, look into it.
False. He made the copy as a gift, and gave every detail. He wasn’t the one lying about any of it. He never pretended it was ancient. You are thinking of Tischendorf.
Allegedly he wrote this thing is a mere year. Why would all the 'errors" be in the script if it was not written in a hurry? And yes, papers can be easily aged.
So did Dr. Riddle say that FCM is a forgery and not misdated? Not trying to cause a stir but I thought it the document was just misdated. Everything else was educational - thank you Dr. Riddle for the video.
No, I was not saying FCM was a forgery but an illustration of how a scholar might accept an unfounded dating to support his point without proper evidence, as DW himself admitted in his apology. Sorry if that was unclear. It is a different kind of example than the other two and maybe should not have been lumped with them.
All I can say is my 1849 Bible looks older than many of the pages in Sinaiticus so it is definitely not true that it is 4th century. And there are pages that are much whiter than others. Looks like someone tried aging and never finished it. Well, all I can say is I own an 1849 King James Bible sent from the UK as a gift from a brother that redoes old Bibles and they go to auction for big bucks. He has done 1500’s Myles Coverdale Bibles, Geneva Bibles and very old KJB. Simonides must have been telling the truth and I am not quick to believe a Jesuit like Tish or the higher critics.
No heroes in this story . 2 rats arguing over forged cheese. Tsimonodese deserves damnation for penning a corrupt Bible and Tichendorf deserves the same for the error of Baalim. Sinaticus is bad fruit from 2 bad trees.
Before you go too far. How can you be a minister of a “reformed” Baptist church if you don’t adhere to infant baptism or do you? Yurt asking as I am a full immersion adherent.
The orthodox Bible agreeing with the texts receptus This helps to prove that it is real, is there any proof that these books have been carbon dated, codex alexandrinus & Codex Sinaiticus, thanks for the information i will check the debates.
no 2 alexandrinus bibles (ie there are many different versions of that Bible) are the same, the sinaiticus does not have to be tested, the binding alone tells you it is post 1100 ad
4:52 The way we have "adjudicated" this claim at The Rooted Word, with our translation in progress, is to dismiss the Codex Sinaiticus from our sources of our translation. Since there is serious and testified doubt by the man who claimed to have forged it and that testimony was made in the times of its discovery, that is too serious to ignore. We have rejected use of this supposed Codex in our translation. That is how to fairly and safely manage the matter with regards to translation work.
39:57 - Jeff, I really think that if you were to pause and consider the evidence, the statement that Codex Sinaiticus "may be a forgery" by Simonides is one of the most implausible things you have ever said, however one qualifies it.
James, look forward to hearing your presentation on this topic. For now, I'll stand by my statement that it "may" have been created by CS but that this is "not very probable." Perhaps your debate will convince me that this position is completely "implausible." My central point is that it illustrates an overall problem with the reconstruction method--uncertainty of origins/provenance of extant evidence. Best wishes to all.
@@wordmagazine - your point about the unreliability of the reconstruction method is sound. David Daniels covers the similar case of Archaic Mark, ms. 2427, in his 2018 book. Is The "World's Oldest Bible" A Fake? . A second book is planned to be out in 2021. The book by David is the only one I can recommend that questions authenticity.
@@wordmagazine, I hope the evidence presented in the debate earlier today (at Talking Christianity) clears up whatever was unclear about the veracity of Simonides' claims.
@@buddyroeginocchio9105 if you can prove God, or maybe why people go to church and don’t read the Bible, and if they did they would know that it’s has so many errors, and to get right down to it. How can you prove there’s a heaven and hell if nobody has ever came back physically from either? Name me one?
Who else, but an expert forger, could produce this fake bible? And then there is that matter that both these chaps made repeated trips to the same places, and even more "leaves" were later 'discovered."
Its my impression from Chris Pintos documentary that tischiendorf was not an expert.
He wasn't
Wow. So glad I found this. I've been studying over the majority and critical texts for years and this was truly wonderful. Thank you
When you turn to Mark 16:9-20 in most modern Bibles, it's got a note, a thick line, a separate heading, and/or a footnote that says it doesn't belong; don't trust it. Why?
Out of 620 manuscripts that contain Mark's gospel, 618 of them have those verses. That's all 600 minuscules (that's lower case letters), all 15 uncials (that's upper case letters), and 3 of 5 codices (you know, "big books"). Only 2 of the 620 leave out those verses: The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus.
1 Chronicles 11:22 through Lamentations 2:20
This section is very white while the rest of Sinaiticus is unusually dark as if someone darkened it.
(It turns out that two different guys visited the monastery the year after Tischendorf did, to see this manuscript among others after he took the CFA away. And one of them wrote about it, Porfiry Uspensky, a Russian bishop. He visited St. Catherine's in 1845, the year after Tischendorf. He said all of it was WHITE! But look at Matthew, for instance, after Tischendorf got hold of it:)
There is a way to solve this accusation, all Accademia needs to do is take random small samples from the four parts of Sinaiticus and send them off for chemical analysis, then we would know for a fact if the darkening was done by age or by human forgery.
This will never happen, they already know that Sinaiticus is a forgery but multiple millions of dollars of bibles have been printed based partly on Sinaiticus, so if proven to be a forgery all of those millions of dollars worth of bibles and Accademia itself would be called into question and Accademia would suffer a huge blow to their credibility.
So NO way are they gonna do anything that would prove conclusively that Sinaiticus is a forgery.
There is a saying "it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
It is better for Accademia to take the doubting claims that Sinaiticus is a forgery than to do chemical analysis and remove all doubt that it is indeed a forgery.
Thank you
thank you... good to see a scholarly pastor being so careful about the evidence in all of this, not accepting the "scholarly consensus" hook, line and sinker... better to await possible forthcoming evidence or research on this case, ... even though it may just turn out that the modern biblical scholars are right re. Simonides and codex Sinaiticus ... but we cannot know that for sure, as of today... this podcast represents a serious contrast to certain others (like JW) who just conclude things and dismiss things without sufficient evidence... ;-) God bless and a blessed new year... :)
Have you seen the videos about sinaiticus from the channel "tricktracts"? In my opinion, he proves without a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed a forgery.
@@JesusProtects i dont think chicktracts is a good teacher
Simple answer, YES !
Simonides and Tischendorf were the Westcott and Hort of their day.
And they represented the same church.
Why is such an important document sitting around for 1800 years and nobody really knows what it is and its importance?
David Daniels did a bunch of work on this and I think wrote a book.
This is what you get when you confuse artifacts for manuscripts. There would be too much egg on their face to address this.
I was watching a KJVO debate and when one of the panelist used the word “fake” everyone on the panel picked up their heads and their eyes widened. We all know how poor the scholarship is, when we read the ESV, NIV and a like.
I have a copy of Codex Siniaticus,it’s not artifact. ITS A BIBLE. THE PROBLEM IS THE FIRST CODEXES WITH THE NT WERE DIFFERENT. THE CHURCH KNEW THAT, AND TRY TO HIDE THEM, AND COME UP WITH THE LATIN VULGATE. THE CHURCH DIDN’T WANT PEOPLE TO READ THE BIBLE. THEY EVEN BURNED THE LIBERTIES OF ALEXANDRIA. THEY ONLY WANTED A PRIEST TO READ THE BIBLE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHURCH WHICH MOST DO NOT. THE HISTORICAL CHURCH IS EVIL.
Just look into the fact that the shepherd of hermus was an integral part of the codex, more specifically, iit shared the same folded pages with revelation, ie the end of revelation and beginning of shepherd of hermus, and both were in greek. No one at that time even knew that a greek shepherd of hermus existed, however simonedes sold one to a university in germany, or the country that existed at that location back then, and it was in Greek, the story goes on , tishendorf claimed that the shepherd of hermus sold by simonedes was a fake, not knowing that the same shepherd of hermus was attached to codex sinaiticus, but then back stepped, one he found the rest, or later part of sinaiticus, etc, etc.
Dr. Dan Wallace does an excellent video treatment of this question with personal anecdotes.
The biggest issue for those claiming the codex as the genuine article is the inclusion of the shepherd of Hemas, a copy of which Simonides had presented to sell earlier and which Tischendorf had cried forgery. That fact supports the view that the codex may indeed be a forgery if Tischendorf and other literary critics are to be consistent. Simonides's claim to have been at St Catherine's monastery, along with his uncle and dismissed as a lie, was also found to be a true claim. So, the timing of the find is at the least something which ought to be viewed with some suspicion.
As far as I know it has never been scientifically dated due to the destructive nature of the procedure. However, one might then wonder if discovering now that it is a forgery, much like the Hitler diaries, the Piltdown man hoax, or photos of fairies were, is too much of a risk.
Since we know nothing the Bible is nothing but foolish stories, and errors and proving Siniaticus and Vatican is nothing compared to other false things the Church claims. And where is the truth when the scriptures are of things like stopping the sun, flying chariots, dead people coming out the graves, what else heaven and hell are real because nobody has ever physically come back from either to tell about it. Reality 101 just show me the real truth, and JESUS being alive before he was born ten years before, answers that?
That was a VERY good video covering the material. I want to hear more about this. I agree with the conclusion too. It seems like the intent of the modern translators is to filter out any and all biblical references to the divinity of Christ, which I think is in error. If someone is quoting from the NIV or ESV or (God forbid) the RSV, I just cringe.
You can defend the deity of the Messiah in a modern translation and more easily so in some cases. I appreciate the RSV and the NASB, it's more conservative counterpart. The philosophy of both sets of translators was to produce a literal and accessible translation. The NT was written in ancient marketplace Greek, and virtually everyone could understand it. We should have the same today.
@@conradwalker4905 - Easier to understand? Maybe. I'll grant you that having to learn the difference between "you" and "thee" is a little tricky but understanding those differences makes the passage clearer. Is the person talking to "YOU" in particular or "Y'ALL"? Old English is clearer than modern English in that regard and it conforms to the singular/plural-ness of the Greek.
When the bible says, "All things were made BY him (Jesus)..." is that more or less clear than "All things were made THROUGH him..."? "Through Him" is less clear because nobody has ever said that something was made "through" something else. Their use of the language is not how the language is ever used - except in the modern versions of the bible.
My car was made THROUGH the Ford Motor Company. Nobody talks like that. "Who was your car made through?" Who talks like that? Nobody - except those great Jesuit and even Atheist translators who want everybody to understand the bible better. These devils have a clear agenda and understanding God's word is not it.
There are many other examples that I could identify: Philippians 2 is deliberately turned on it's head to throw off the scent. Did Jesus consider Himself equal with God or didn't He? The Textus Receptus says He did but the Gnostic texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) say the opposite. No wonder these Gnostic texts had been abandoned for hundreds of years in moldering and forgotten archives. Nobody believed that stuff until the Catholic Church and the Jesuit Counter-reformation revived them. Who let those reprobates in? Academics, that's who. Not sincere believers.
I don't buy what they're selling. I know what their agenda is and I know exactly how they're pulling the wool over the eyes of all believers. I have one of the versions of the ever changing NIV on my bookshelf. I also have the NASB (actually it's an old NASV - the version before they revised it). And when I want another view of a passage, I'll flip through those things but my goto version of the bible is the KJV. It's much clearer.
And don't get me started on the Old Testament. The Masoretic Text is NOT what Christ and the apostles used in the first century. They used the LXX. So even the KJV's Old Testament is tainted.
"it''s amazing what great condition this manuscript is of 1600 years. it's made of miraculous parchment, and written with miracle ink!"
I saw the codex about 15 years ago in the British museum and was surprised how well it was preserved really good condition for a book nearly 2000 years old
I’m researching this issue… do we have anywhere in antiquity, such a document or manuscript that has been found in incredible condition as this codex?
No miracles. 😂
No miracle. Not the Shroud of Turin hoax.
Yeas. Ha ha.
Excellent presentation, this helps to understand the nature of the flesh an bones working on the authenticity of the Bible.
Provenance vs Providence? Ultimately these two must agree because truth will prevail. For my own subjective speculation I will stay with Textus Receptus based on results. Although imperfect as we humans are, KJV navigated the English speaking Church in a miraculous effect and elevated western civilization to plateaus unprecedented. The Modern Era (ME vs AD not CE) has produced malicious destruction of western culture and the church resulting our present humiliating condition (of what glory would ye now boast?).
I don't despair the effects of textual criticism in their own right but I bitterly resent paying for much of it with offerings that were intended to honor our Lord Jesus.
Thanks for the background info. I was unaware of some of that.
Also back in those times it was not uncommon for a15 year old to possess the ability to speak several biblical languages,write and translate the same. Todays scholars would have been no match to such a fifteen year old, heck they possess superior knowledge even at the ages of 6,7,8 etc than most alleged scholars today, look into it.
In the first century 95% percent of people were illiterate! Hardly no books most didn’t know what a book looked, only people that wrote were top 2%.
Doesn’t the Lambros Catalogue confirm that Simonides was at Mt. Athos?
Isn't it possible that some pages of the
Manuscript it was based upon had some damages? Should have been carbon dated.
Before the first Greek Codexes with NT in the four century No manuscript just fragments
They can just date the ink
Simonides the boy who cried wolf
False. He made the copy as a gift, and gave every detail. He wasn’t the one lying about any of it. He never pretended it was ancient. You are thinking of Tischendorf.
I guess I said this in that Simonides was known as a forger but in regards to sinaiticus he told the truth 👍🏽
What did the monks have to say about the Codex Sinaiticus? If it was a forgery then why can its roots be traced back to St Catherines monestary?
If it was genuine it would not have needed scribal corrections, try looking at it this way.
Allegedly he wrote this thing is a mere year. Why would all the 'errors" be in the script if it was not written in a hurry? And yes, papers can be easily aged.
Why is the early Codexes the same.
I don't believe a word of how Sinaiticus was "found". It's a ridiculous story.
The most confusing time of the week. Sunday school Scripture reading.
So did Dr. Riddle say that FCM is a forgery and not misdated? Not trying to cause a stir but I thought it the document was just misdated. Everything else was educational - thank you Dr. Riddle for the video.
No, I was not saying FCM was a forgery but an illustration of how a scholar might accept an unfounded dating to support his point without proper evidence, as DW himself admitted in his apology. Sorry if that was unclear. It is a different kind of example than the other two and maybe should not have been lumped with them.
Thanks for the comment and opportunity to clarify.
@@wordmagazine No problem. It confused me for a moment with the two forgery examples flanking it. I am looking forward to the next video.
So is our Bible fake or what sir?
@@teasea221It only impacts modern text versions, not received text versions.
For me codex sinaiticus never passed the smell test and neither does codex vaticanus!
All I can say is my 1849 Bible looks older than many of the pages in Sinaiticus so it is definitely not true that it is 4th century. And there are pages that are much whiter than others. Looks like someone tried aging and never finished it.
Well, all I can say is I own an 1849 King James Bible sent from the UK as a gift from a brother that redoes old Bibles and they go to auction for big bucks. He has done 1500’s Myles Coverdale Bibles, Geneva Bibles and very old KJB. Simonides must have been telling the truth and I am not quick to believe a Jesuit like Tish or the higher critics.
No heroes in this story . 2 rats arguing over forged cheese. Tsimonodese deserves damnation for penning a corrupt Bible and Tichendorf deserves the same for the error of Baalim. Sinaticus is bad fruit from 2 bad trees.
Yes. It is a forgery.
Read "The Case for Byzantine Priority".
Before you go too far. How can you be a minister of a “reformed” Baptist church if you don’t adhere to infant baptism or do you? Yurt asking as I am a full immersion adherent.
Aren't Baptists creedal as a matter of doctrine?
Interesting.
Thank you sir!
Soli deo Gloria
2 John 1:6 KJB ☝️
Sigh Nigh ti cuss (not Sigh knee ati cuss) From where does an ee sound come after the N?
The orthodox Bible agreeing with the texts receptus This helps to prove that it is real, is there any proof that these books have been carbon dated, codex alexandrinus & Codex Sinaiticus, thanks for the information i will check the debates.
no 2 alexandrinus bibles (ie there are many different versions of that Bible) are the same, the sinaiticus does not have to be tested, the binding alone tells you it is post 1100 ad
4:52 The way we have "adjudicated" this claim at The Rooted Word, with our translation in progress, is to dismiss the Codex Sinaiticus from our sources of our translation. Since there is serious and testified doubt by the man who claimed to have forged it and that testimony was made in the times of its discovery, that is too serious to ignore. We have rejected use of this supposed Codex in our translation. That is how to fairly and safely manage the matter with regards to translation work.
It was made by a 20 year old for the Czar, no wonder it has errors.
Constantinian conspiracy!
modern scholars need food !!!- therefore Vaticanius/Sinaticus
That’s right
>citing Wikipedia
oof. Rare Jeff Riddle L
Only liars on this one are tishendorf and Rome
Sola Wescott and Hort for all morans😅
39:57 - Jeff, I really think that if you were to pause and consider the evidence, the statement that Codex Sinaiticus "may be a forgery" by Simonides is one of the most implausible things you have ever said, however one qualifies it.
James, look forward to hearing your presentation on this topic. For now, I'll stand by my statement that it "may" have been created by CS but that this is "not very probable." Perhaps your debate will convince me that this position is completely "implausible." My central point is that it illustrates an overall problem with the reconstruction method--uncertainty of origins/provenance of extant evidence. Best wishes to all.
@@wordmagazine - your point about the unreliability of the reconstruction method is sound. David Daniels covers the similar case of Archaic Mark, ms. 2427, in his 2018 book. Is The "World's Oldest Bible" A Fake? . A second book is planned to be out in 2021. The book by David is the only one I can recommend that questions authenticity.
@@wordmagazine,
I hope the evidence presented in the debate earlier today (at Talking Christianity) clears up whatever was unclear about the veracity of Simonides' claims.
@@JamesSnapp Hello James, your video at Talking Christianity is not available anymore.
@@ernestorodriguez4742 ,
It was briefly offline but as of this evening it is, happily, available to view once again.
Very dubious textual criticism here from a guy who can't even pronounce the name of the text correctly.
😮❤all these Christian crazies want the Bible to be more than it is. There is so many errors. It like a bunch of writers than was eating bad mushrooms.
Well it just might be because there "is" (sic) so many people who want a church without God where to sing the hymn "I did it my way".
@@buddyroeginocchio9105 if you can prove God, or maybe why people go to church and don’t read the Bible, and if they did they would know that it’s has so many errors, and to get right down to it. How can you prove there’s a heaven and hell if nobody has ever came back physically from either? Name me one?
Who else, but an expert forger, could produce this fake bible? And then there is that matter that both these chaps made repeated trips to the same places, and even more "leaves" were later 'discovered."