James White and Chris Pinto recently debated the topic of whether or not Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery. White argued that it wasn’t, while Pinto argued that it was, thus defending his thesis put forth in his documentary on the subject. See my review of his film here.
The debate was wildly lopsided in favor of White because he is a seasoned champion as a public debater. Never has there been such an imbalance between opponents since Mike Tyson’s bout with Peter McNeeley. Additionally, he has taught extensively on textual criticism and had a firm command of the subject matter under discussion; but most importantly, he defended the correct position.
Kudos, however, do have to be given to Pinto, who admitted from the start of his opening statement that he had never done such a debate before. Not only was he going into “hostile territory” as it were, because he has come under heavy criticism from a number of individuals including myself, but he also lacked the textual expertise that White brought to the table.
The full debate can be heard HERE, along with about 35 minutes of opening comments by White who responded to Pinto’s absurd post-debate commentary in which he claimed White brought nothing substantive to the debate.
Now, in the preceding discussions leading up to the debate, those who defended Pinto’s Codex Sinaiticus conspiracy theory painted it as just a secondary issue among Christians. Sort of like amillennialist disagreeing with premillennialist as to how we are to interpret Revelation 20. In fact, in his opening statement, Pinto made the point to say the debate was an in-house disagreement between brothers in the Lord.
If we mean “secondary” in the sense that believing Pinto’s codex conspiracy is the same as teaching a false gospel, well of course I’d agree with him. But declaring the subject matter of this debate a “secondary” issue does not mean it is unimportant, nor does it absolve Pinto from his bad history lessons he presents in his film. He has to be held accountable.
The reason why this debate is an important one is that it challenges a prevailing stream of consciousness regrettably found among many believers these days. Pinto, and similar individuals like him, have taught numerous, undiscerning Christians to live spiritual lives that are, for lack of a better term, conspiratorially driven.
They are being told that church history has been largely shaped by sinister, dark forces that lurk in the shadows. Whether they be the Illuminati, Jesuits, or whatever, those forces ceaselessly toil to disrupt God’s purposes and the lives of Christians everywhere. If Christians are just only made aware of those forces and the evil they attempt to perpetrate and learn to identify and avoid them, why the church in America would be in much better spiritual health.
So the Christians who have come under the spell of that kind of spiritualized, tin-foil hat paranoia, gather to themselves literature and DVDs, like the stuff Pinto puts out, and believe if they know the intricacies of all the Masonic symbols on the dollar bill or on the monuments in DC, that they have risen to a level of sanctification that transcends your smarter than average Baptist deacon.
But not only does this nonsense inform Christians with a woefully errant understanding of historical fact, it draws people away from the important things of Christ to stirring up in their hearts trivial obsessions that honestly lead to no good at all. More importantly, it smites God’s character. Because conspiracy mongers unwittingly portray our Sovereign God as helpless in the direction of bad things influencing the Church. The Jesuits, for instance in Pinto’s movies, have been given almost omnipotent status. They control everything and there is nothing God can do about it. Practically every God-fearing, truth-loving, soul-winning, modern-version reading Christian has been duped by their trickery. Only those faithful TR/KJV onlyists hold the keys to truth. If more people would only read Gail Riplinger’s stuff.
What White did was to challenge the prevailing tin-foil hat theology that has infiltrated the minds of many Christians, exposing it as being bankrupt. How I pray more folks will have ears to hear and eyes to see in these matters.
Fred, I agree with your take. I thought White won in a pure facts-to-facts competition. Of course, Pinto is not a KJV-only-ist, but the argumentation seemed vaguely familiar. Knowing little about the controversy before the debate, I don’t think it’s even close to reasonable to believe the forgery conspiracy after hearing both sides present their thoughts.
As my husband quipped, you really dropped the ball here Fred. The guy in the picture really needs a Star Wars shirt.
I’ve edited this comment for the profanity. Nothing like being cussed out by a KJVO apologist…[FB]
You really are pure s***. The easy mocking you Counter-Reformation devils engage in is solely because you have the world and the devil behind you. You are pure s***. Have fun in hell.
There is absolutely no substance to this article but what would we expect from hips and thighs??
Ah. My anonymous commenter friend. Can you explain what is NOT substantive about this post? I take it you think conspiracies abound everywhere and we are being naive not to exercise discernment? What sort of “substance” are you expecting? Please do tell me and I’ll do my best to be substantive just for you!
In all honesty, even though Christian Pinto is obviously a very intelligent man who is also, undoubtedly, very talented, “Tares Among the Wheat” reminded me more of the Da Vinci Code than anything else.
I did what you said and found Farrar’s Literary Frauds on the web and read the Simonides chapter. Even though he is orders of magnitude more sympathetic to Simonides than was Scribner, he has little praise for the man and obviously had a low opinion of him. Also Farrar’s lack of knowledge of textual studies makes his conclusions dubious.
The fatal flaw to my thinking, at least, is the Alexandrian nature of Codex Sinaiticus and its unique readings that are not to be found in the Moscow Bible, but are instead found in the papyri, which were unknown at the time. How could Simonides have reproduced these readings, especially if he was making a text for the Czar that would have been so different from the Czar’s own ecclesiastical text? Simonides would have had to compose these from texts that were radically different from the Byzantine text, which is unlikely in the extreme if he was making a text for the Czar.
Alternatively he could have composed them from some other texts lying around, which also happen to coincide with the papyri that were unknown as the time, and would have been even older than Codex Sinaiticus and equally divergent from the Byzantine text. Either way you have scenarios that are wildly improbable.
Let’s remember too that Constantine von Tishendorf’s work on Codex Sinaiticus has not simply been taken at face value, but has been confirmed and reconfirmed by generations of paleographers since his time. Both it and Codex Vaticanus are ancient texts of Scripture . Let’s treasure them, not attack them.
I think debating the issue of textual criticism for a popular audience is rather difficult especially for those set in a conspiratory bent already; nevertheless I pray some will see the wildness of their views, and also for those who are not familiar with this to get informed. Thanks Fred.
If Fred has the world and the devil behind him, why are you the one sinning with your tongue like you’re in some sort of contest?
I listened to the debate as I was driving to a choral practice last week, and I almost hit the ditch.
When Pinto pulled out the “But Mount Athos has at least a thousand manuscripts that haven’t been seen by anyone” line, I was screaming at my steering wheel.
If they haven’t been seen, how does anyone know how many there are? How does anyone know there’s a thousand? What if there’s only TWO?
Also, how does anyone know if those two are relevant? What if they’re just dirty Greek limericks written by a potty-mouth monk? Isn’t it possible that they’re dirty Greek limericks written by a potty-mouth monk and not Bible manuscripts?
Isn’t it POSSIBLE?
Chris Pinto likes to say he is not kjvo but his 5 minute closing remarks were pure kjvo statements that would do Sam Gipp and Peter Ruckman proud. This whole “Tares Among the Wheat” thing is just kjvo propaganda.
Is that you, Peter Ruckman?
Pinto quoted a source on that point, why don’t you look at the source?
“The reason why this debate is an important one is that it challenges a prevailing stream of consciousness regrettably found among many believers these days. Pinto, and similar individuals like him, have taught numerous, undiscerning Christians to live spiritual lives that are..conspiratorially driven….church history has been largely shaped by sinister, dark forces that lurk in the shadows.”
\begin tongue-in-cheek post
The Conspiratorially Driven Life:
As Eph 5:11f says: secret, shadowy forces don’t manifest in modern times, so believers shouldn’t expose them. Why expose what doesn’t exist, and risk being tagged as spiritually immature? The Prince of Tyre may have been the King of Tyre’s sock puppet, but that was in the olden days. Besides, the conspiracy topic is just creepy. ‘Noah’s Ark Found on Ararat’ is where we should draw our creep-out line, or risk being zinged (by Ned Flanders?) with the ‘C’ word.
God’s Own FauxNews & Snopes Define Safe Geopolitical Topics:
Christians today thrill to the age of genetic engineering, synthetic biology, Facebook, Google, Smartphones & Twitter. So let’s leave Bump In The Night, shadow government, tin foil stuff to the charismatics, the snake handlers, & TROnly types. “They’re animals; let them sell their souls.” The only big, visible, identifiable enemy to the Church today is Militant Islam. OK, and Darwin.
666: What? Me Worry?
Solid, conservative scholarship has assured us of late that end-time believers who take the mark of the beast _needn’t_ worry about a long swim in the lake of fire. Why? Because people can take the mark, and then repent before they die. Opt out. So don’t become educated about biometric scanners required for school lunches, banking, employment, travel or Homeland Security/TSA checkpoints, for internet access etc. Learn about Smartmeters & NSA surveillance hubs? That’s time better spent learning about the ‘L’ in TULIP, or Calvin’s thoughts on infant baptism.
New Sanctification App Blocks Conspiracy Websites:
Christ’s sheep get sanctified, in part, by looking forward to the Blessed Hope. That, we’re told, means is an imminent, secret rapture. “sshhHHHhhhhh….”
Don’t Be a Sheeple:
Sheeple expect to see a literal fulfillment of Nebuchadnezzar’s feet & toes vision, with the rollout of Mystery Babylon. Sheeple expect to see a high-tech (but pagan), global commercial system arise, that helps the sea beast of Rev 13 come to power. Only sheeple keep a sharp eye out for precursors to this vast system. They reason that Mystery Babylon won’t arise overnight. This shows an embarrassing lack of faith, and knowledge of an improper topic. Like blurting out, “hey, anybody else American Idol last night?” in Sunday School.
Fight? Flight? Or Coors Lite? Errant Understandings & HiStORiCAL FaCt:
Ray Kurzweil (futurist leader of Google’s Artificial Intelligence group) was asked, “Does God Exist?” He answered, “Well I would say, not yet.” Transhumanism. AI? A global economy with a digital surveillance grid? A 1930’s Germany-style, Stasi police state happening in America…today?? ‘Nothing to see here’ is the Politically Correct mantra from the pulpits today.
If Christians in Germany knew what was coming in the 1930’s, they should have flexed their spiritual muscles. They should have shut up, willingly boarded Hitler’s trains, & ratted out other Christians in obedience to Romans 13 (Hitler’s favorite verse). Sanctification means ignore tyranny’s rise, encourage others to self-censor, and then submit fully to tyranny UNTIL they come to give you the 666 mark. Then you can make a stand, or a speech. Flee to the hills? Nah. All aboard for the heavenly reward faith-training camps. Better to die there than be branded with the ‘C’ word, or embrace woefully errant understandings of historical fact, as taught by govt-controlled education & megacorp propaganda outlets.
Focus on the pretrib rapture. If Paul wanted Christians to watch for signs before the Day of the Lord, wouldn’t he have told you?
\end tongue-in-cheek post.. (..here come the PC smite-a-mole Police)
Chris Pinto’s, Sinaiticus Is a Fake thesis is wrong. Not because conspiracies don’t happen in history. The rise of the Holy Roman Empire was rife with conspiracy at all levels (papal, nation-state, text-handling, financial, land, property, agriculture etc).
Chris Pinto’s Sinaiticus theory is wrong because he’s supplied no evidence that it was the product of conspiracy. As someone else said, ‘Standard M.O. for Pinto? Raise suggestions and point you at the rumor, but never quite say it yourself. Plausible deniability. This is what is meant by the adage “Clever liars give details, but the cleverest don’t.” ‘
Thinking Allowed- Did Chris Pinto act alone? Is his, ‘Tares Among the Wheat’ just the work of an Oswald-like, lone nut? Or could he be part of a larger KJVO/TRO …conspiracy?
Great new post btw: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/12/17/chris-pinto-debate-summary-turretinfan/
“My Hope is Built on Nothing Less..
I was making a point about the argument’s content as well as form. Any minute level of comic nuance (above a kick to the crotch) is lost on the internet…
Even your second sentence is false.
“Is Codex Sinaiticus a Modern Forgery” –
“White argued that it wasn’t, while Pinto argued that it was, ”
The moderator, Chris Rosebrough opened up the show very carefully and stated the positions:
Chris Pinto – “that’s still an open question, it hasn’t been determined as to whether or not it really is authentic or not”
James White – “it is an authentic 4th century codex”
If you can not even hear and represent the clearly stated positions right, that does not say much for your abilities to discern the issues in the debate.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery, still trying to rescue the reputation of Chris Pinto writes,
The moderator, Chris Rosebrough opened up the show very carefully and stated the positions
Chris Pinto – “that’s still an open question, it hasn’t been determined as to whether or not it really is authentic or not” – In other words, that’s Pinto newspeak that means, it’s a modern day forgery. Just like I summarized.
Steven, if you cannot even hear and represent what Pinto has been so obviously saying throughout his DVD and now in this public, moderated debate that he lost, that does not say much for you abilities to discern the issues of the debate.
This was so helpful to be able to forward to some of my contacts – thanks
Sent from Windows Mail
Someone from a “discernment ministry” (sic) said, “Consulting only KJV onlyists reveals the major flaw in Pinto’s DVD…”
So, if that’s the “major flaw”, it’s invented. But it still seems to be the prevailing thought. Maybe you can help clear this up and explain why this lie continues to be perpetuated.
Among the THOUSANDS of “KJV Onlyists”, Mr. Pinto also consulted with the following: Dr. Moira Goff, Dr. Scot McKendrick, Dr. Juan Garces, Dr. Ronald Cooke, Dr. Henry Hudson, Dr. David Brown and Roger Oakland….NONE of whom are “KJV Onlyists.”
History Channel’s show, Ancient Aliens never claims their theory is fact. Just a mystery. A _mystery_ that’s going into it’s sixth season. Unlike Ancient Aliens, Pinto’s documentary is presented as having a solid basis in history & scholarship. Scholarship that fell down a Jesuit crack, and now’s the time to revive it. Pinto’s documentary, combined with his podcasts, calls for your deep suspicion of Sinaiticus (forged) and your rejection of anything other than the Textus Receptus.
Re: Pinto’s ‘it’s a mystery’ scribal margin note. This disclaimer part of his disingenuous fan dance. “Yeah, hath Pinto said Sinaiticus is a fake?” (Nice KJV sound, eh?)
Those sheep-dipped by Pinto’s film will likely believe Sinaiticus was forged by Simonides. That’s the goal of the film. The point is NOT, ‘here are three hours of Pulp Fiction that may or may not be true.’ Hello? He’s betting the masses don’t know an uncial from a minuscule.
Pinto’s ‘it’s a mystery’ disclaimer is a lame, if-it-comes-to-a-jury (almost legal) defense. Erich Von Daniken does the same thing with his Ancient Astronauts claims. That’s OK in popular ‘Histories Mysteries’ media, designed to sell books & advertising, and it’s not a crime. But it approaches yellow journalism when peddled to a Christian audience as something having dire spiritual consequences. You don’t want to harvest the devil’s Tares, mistaking them for God’s Wheat, do you?
Sadly, James White’s exposure of Pinto’s pseudo-scholarship might never reach the masses. Pinto’s supporters (all thirteen, counting Pinto’s damage-control guy S. Avery) may be aware of his open question disclaimer, but they don’t care ‘cuz they’re into the Koolaide.
The force of his documentary & presentations is AS THOUGH IT IS fact. Fact to compel believers to distrust modern translations based on older, Critical Text manuscripts & papyri. By extension: to reject any translation that’s not based on the Textus Receptus. Beware: TROnlyism always brings swarms of KJVO pilot fish, swimming alongside.
Pinto broadcasts his real agenda on his Noise of Textus Receptus (NOTR) audio program. That agenda is TROnlyism, his hobby-horse. TRO is a gateway drug; just say no. Maybe Sinaiticus was forged by Professor Plum, in the library, with a candlestick? But that’s a sneaky way of smuggling in the real agenda. I thought only Jesuits used Fifth Column tactics, Hegelian dialectic & subterfuge?
Why anyone would want to carry water for Pinto’s Sinaiticus theory is beyond me. A theory based on an old rumor about a long-dead, Joseph Smith type trickster. A theory demanding the onus be placed upon scholars like Dan Wallace & James White. The burden of proof is on Wallace & White to disprove a negative that’s backed by no extant evidence. This non-evidence (which Pinto’s never seen) may be hidden on a mountain, guarded by monks who don’t want to share. Pinto’s throw down:
“Have you even LOOKED, Dr. White? Have you EVEN _LOOKED_ THERE, Doctor?!? I.. think… NOT!”
Maybe these phantom (Alexandrian-type) source documents are in a big wooden crate, on the Raiders of the Lost Ark loading dock? Along with Moroni’s golden plates, Joseph Smith’s special Elton John glasses, and that weather balloon from Roswell..
Disclaimer: “This post contains mystery stuff. The parts you disagree with may or may not contain fact, and may not reflect the view of this writer unless of course, they do. If you think you’ve got my point, you may be wrong.. unless you agree with that point.”
Among the THOUSANDS of “KJV Onlyists”, Mr. Pinto also consulted with the following: Dr. Moira Goff, Dr. Scot McKendrick, Dr. Juan Garces, Dr. Ronald Cooke, Dr. Henry Hudson, Dr. David Brown and Roger Oakland….NONE of whom are “KJV Onlyists.”
On the promotional literature for his TATW DVD, as well as the credits that appear before the film begins, we have listed the following individuals,
Dr. David Brown, Dr. Henry Hudson, Dr. Ronald Cooke, Dr. Alan O’Reilly, Les Garrett, Roger Oakland, Dr. D.A. Waite, and Dr. H.D. Williams.
As I have stated, if you google their names and KJV, you will find that they have either written books defending the KJV or articles of the same nature. The work of these men are featured prominently among a number of KJV websites.
Now, it may be that they are TR only guys, which is pretty much the same as KJV onlyists, with a few nuances here and there, but they ALL defend the view that modern versions have been corrupted or contain heretical readings that are extremely problematic.
Dr. Juan Garces, Dr. Scot McKendrick, and Moria Goff are all involved with the British Library and the Online Sinaticus project. Though Pinto may have “interviewed” those men in his video (I only recall Scot McKendrick) they were not questioned as to the thesis regarding Simonides, nor were they consulted to provide the alternative to the TR view. They were shown as holding unorthodox views of inspiration and infallibility, particularly McKendrick, and how the Sinaiticus allegedly brings spiritual ruin to a person’s views of the Bible. That is neither scholarly or unbiased, but is the presentation of propaganda.
I know this isn’t really a response to Pinto but people should ask themselves what they are left feeling they should do after watching a Pinto video? Are they left feeling they need to fear and avoid stuff or are they left with the comfort that God is in control, that they can rest securely in Christ?
Perfect love casts out fear. So why is Pinto so driven by fear? Why are his VERY LONG videos all talking about all the things we have to be afraid of? These things attract sheep who are without a shepherd, who fear every danger that is out there and seek a solution that involves something THEY can do for themselves. (i.e. figure out the secret code and hide from the scary people).
I feel like I’m watching cut scene movies from something like Assassins creed when I watch Pinto’s stuff. And that goes for all of his videos, all of which I’ve seen. Without exception he does all of his work this way.
Jut like an evolutionist, the only sources he considers credible are those which support his end conclusion already. The evolutionist denounces any Intelligent Design or Creationist argument as ‘unscientific’ for the very reason that it is not coming from an evolutionist. And once an evolutionist questions evolution that person immediately becomes ‘unscientific’ and is no longer considered credible.
Pinto is the same. Don’t confuse him and his followers with facts.
I had a friend suggest I watch “A Beautiful Mind” back in the summer when Pinto’s nutty falsely accusatory behavior started coming out. (I realize that John Nash’s character was cleaned up greatly for the movie.) She said it reminded her of the way this guy thought – imagining things and connections that aren’t there and refusing to trust other people because obviously once they start contradicting what he believes to be true they’ve been compromised. However Nash at least learned to trust other people and discern between fantasy and reality even if his delusional imaginations didn’t ever entirely go away.
After seeing it, I have to agree. And it’s very sad to me that people keep following this kind of thought process. As they say, birds of a feather…
How was “I” left feeling after the first documentary by Chris Pinto that I ever watched? Like there was just a slight chance that I’d been deceived by government owned and run institutions (like government schools) and the mainstream media. And, that since there was a slight chance at least some of what I’d been taught was “stretched”, at best, I’d do myself a service by doing some of my own research.
So I did.
And guess what? I DID find that the government schools, even way back in the 1970s, were teaching “inaccurate” history.
Then he started sharing his research on the history of the church and the Bible…which my OWN research of American and world history had already brought ME around to (funny how connected it all is!)…and I found out that there is A LOT of mis-info, and dis-info, in the church, as well.
I’m glad I did my homework. But then I’m the type who would rather know the truth than cling to a comfy lie. I’m just odd that way. :)
For anyone who might see this and might be interested….Dr. Elisha Weismann is going to Mt. Athos today (December 20) to do his own research. So, if you’re interested, keep an eye out for what he learns on his trip. :)
You mean fake “dr.” Ach’s alter-ego? Really? Maybe he can take some selfies with the staff at the monastery to prove he is a totally separate and real person. By the way, where did he get his doctorate and in what subject? I’d ask the same about “dr.” Ach, too, because he won’t answer that question for me.
Sanctification in the daily Christian life does not come from undue focus on world affairs, the schemes & foibles of men, but from a yieldedness to the revealed word of God. That said:
Judging truth by how things make us feel is a popular form of experience-based Christianity. Noah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel & John the Baptizer were all party poopers. Real downers. But were they telling the truth?
‘Conspiracy’ is a charged label, like the term ‘racist’. There are real racists, just as is real conspiracy. But these terms, more often than not, are used to shut down & control conversation. Keep us on the PC Reservation.
You May Be A Kook If:
The 9/11 Commission Report is the official conspiracy theory, by definition. It suggests nineteen boys with boxcutters collapsed _three_ Manhattan skyscrapers, & hand flew a B757 across the Pentagon lawn at nearly Mach 1, punching out a small hole and leaving file cabinets, desks, sandwiches intact just inches from the impact periphery. These boys with boxcutters got past all U.S. & airport security, and even made NORAD stand down until the attacks were over. All of this was directed by a scary (ex-CIA) muslim guy with a turban & a satellite phone, hiding among goats in an Afghani cave. True OR False, not sayin’.. But if you believe this: you’re a Conspiracy person, by definition. That’s you in the picture above. Got tin foil?
(fingers in ears “la..la..LA..LAA..la..la! I..don’t ..hear you)
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) produced the most recent official govt ruling on JFK in 1979. They concluded that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy involving multiple shooters. Look it up, and pass the tin foil.
The Soviet Union’s Venona files (recently declassified) confirmed virtually all of Sen Joe McCarthy’s claims during the Red Scare, and then some.
Charlotte Iserbyt’s work exposing the deliberate dumbing-down of American education, Macnamara’s admission that the Gulf of Tonkin incident (leading us into Vietnam, 65K U.S. deaths) was fiction, top CIA spook E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession about JFK’s assassins in Dealy Plaza etc.
Before You Play That ‘C’ Card Again:
These examples are to respectfully offset the notion that any mention of conspiracy should be rejected outright as kook material. There are true conspiracies, and there are phony ones. The truth be told: let the heavens fall.
Pinto’s wrong about Sinaiticus because he’s selling a Vatican conspiracy theory that’s unsubstantiated, and probably unfalsifiable. As such, his whopper belongs in supermarket tabloids next to reports of ‘Michael Jackson’s Love Child Found In Mt. Athos Monastery’. IMO, Pinto’s Sinaiticus tale has given true conspiracies a bad name.
Merry Christmas to all.. & gracious thanks to Fred. -GA
G. Edward Griffin on a Conspiratorial View of History
here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoMezGPkyzU (starts around :24 min mark)
or here: http://youtu.be/FoMezGPkyzU
Madame Blavatsky’s comments about Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus:
Darlene. Did you read ALL of her letter in its entirety? It is one extended rant against the Jews, the Bible, the historicity of Scripture, and her belief that ALL of Christianity had been corrupted. IT’s the sort of stuff I read now from atheists on the internet. Similar stuff as what Joseph Smith wrote during her day.
Not only does she not believe Codex Sinaiticus is authentic, she rails against the OT as presenting a pagan god and distinguished against the “Jesus” of the NT, she denies the veracity of the prophets, particularly Daniel, and she claims the LXX is also a fraudulent work. With that attitude, I’d expect her to rant against Tischendorf. She is a God hater and hardly a credible source for Pinto’s theory.
On his 12/21/13 Noise Of Textus Receptus broadcast, Chris Pinto cites occult theosophist Madame Blavatsky in support of his Simonides-forged-Sinaiticus theory. Who will he cite next: Anton LaVey? Count Dooku?
Listening to that wasscally Pinto after the debate reminds me of old Looney Tunes cartoons, where Daffy Duck would get shotgun blasted by Elmer Fudd, and not even know it until he took a big drink. Everybody but Daffy would notice the 100 streams of water gushing out of him.
I realize where I’ve heard others argue the way Pinto does on this Sinaiticus topic:
1) Jehovah’s Witnesses distortions of Dana & Mantey on the grammar of John 1:1, their twisted citation from the Moffatt translation etc.. and
2) (everyone’s favorite): Harold Camping, on just about any topic
Dodge, dance & distort: something Camping was a master of. Pinto even emulates Camping’s penchant for raising the volume of his dead-tone voice, to bolster & compensate for some weak point.
“Good ev-EN-ing, and WELcome to Open Forum..” >shudder<
I’m not REAL sure exactly how Blavatsky’s “issues” negate the facts she is addressing in her letter….but okie-dokey. I guess it’s another shiny squirrel to point at instead of maturely dealing with anything of substance.
Reminds me of how even the uber-liberal Huffington Post recognizes the current flood of apostasy within Christianity and often RIGHTLY holds our feet to the fire. However, many Christians would rather talk about and point to the liberalness of the HuffPo than recognize the problem and do the hard work.
This is the same tactic being used here.
You seriously do not understand why her claims are detrimental to your views? Let me see how better I can explain it.
You cite the section of her letter in which she smears Tischendorf as a fraud for presenting the Codex Sinaiticus to the academic world when in point of fact, according to Blavatsky, the codex never existed prior to his publishing of it. Her words appear to support Pinto’s thesis regarding Simonides. That she has some greater insight than the other detractors of her day, who actually knew something about biblical manuscripts and how to date them.
She further claims that one of her Theosophy society friends plans to publish some proof, or that he has more proof that Tischendorf was lying. That person allegedly had been to St. Catherines and spoke with the librarian who also confirmed the story she is writing in her letter. The unnamed society friend is never mentioned which makes me wonder if it was not Simonides himself (because I believe he faked his death), or one of his English associates who had been taken in by his collection of manuscripts. Whatever the case, she never provides any further information about this. Was anything ever seriously published? The section of her letter you link us to suggests that a big load of proof was forthcoming during her day which I would only think would be seriously discussed among other academics, but I reckon the Jesuits silenced it. Who knows?
The difficulty with the information you supply her, Darlene, is many-fold:
1) Blavansky was a known hater of the Bible and Christianity. She would certainly have an agenda with her claims against Tischendorf. Her bias against biblical Christianity would drive her to latch onto any hair-brain information against the Bible she could find no matter how off the wall it was like the Simonides affair.
2) The entire context of her letter, which I can only surmise that you haven’t read, is one long rant against the Jews, the OT, and the Bible as a whole. It is clear she has a bias and a specific agenda against the faith. Hence, any information she presents should be suspicious. Similar to the same claims atheists make against the Bible in today’s world. Think about it, if Richard Dawkins was making those charges on the Huffington Post would you believe him because you are favorable to the Simonides nonsense?
3) If you read further past her section recounting Tischendorf, you will note that she likens Tischendorf finding the codex to when the law was found in the temple during Josiah’s reign. Her theory is that it was conveniently found in order to persecute gays. She further claims that Ezra was involved in making up the Bible in 40 days! she exclaims. And she goes on to conclude that none of those events are supported by history. DO you believe her?
Those are not “shiny squirrels” that detract from her claim about Simonides. Rather, they are tell tale signs that she is out to destroy the Christian’s faith in the Bible and that any information she presents for that purpose should be seriously evaluated. If you think her letter supports Pinto, or is somehow relevant to what he presents in his DVD, I wonder about your discernment. And likewise for Pinto. If he believes her letter is of significance, his in ability for discernment is much worse than I imagined.
Perhaps God was using Blavatsky the Luciferian (despite her issues) to warn Christians about Simonides’ fake Codex. To my chagrin, I hadn’t considered that angle.
Q. So has Carnac the Magnificent weighed in on Simonides’ phantom documents?
i worked for a large engineering consultancy that was part of the official analysis into the collapse of the WTC buildings. A british company that is globally known as among the best engineers in the world (I was a small cog in the company, not claiming kudos for myself). The collapse of the WTC is completely consistent with the planes flying into them. As an engineer, I buy it, and i’ve got no dog in the fight.
If you want to think there is a massive conspiracy with the government about to raid your house with black helicopters, you’d better head up into the ozarks and stock up on ammo.
Reply to ‘Engineer’
Not sure what kind of train you drive, but the 47 story, steel constructed WTC Tower 7 wasn’t hit by any airplane. It’s free fall collapse was initiated apprx 8 hrs after the Twin Towers were struck. It was a New York City block (100 meters) from the Twin Towers.
Molten steel was found (self-oxidizing) in the basements of all _3_ WTC Towers, including Tower 7, deep into December 2001. The NYFD couldn’t quench the molten foundry, which measured nearly 4,000F. Jet fuel (kerosene) can’t get hotter than about 1800F.
That said, have you ever studied topics like human government or the ‘world’ system in the Bible? Who do you think’s running this world? Politicians?
‘Engineer’: Do YOU actually believe Samson killed hundreds of pagans with the jawbone of an ass? Based on what evidence from a ‘major consultancy engineering company’? Crikey! Time for YOU to head to the Ozarks. Duck them Black helicopters!
This just in: 6 of the 9(?) authors of the 9/11 Commission Report (including the lead) have since then posted their opinions that the 9/11 Commission Report was a fraud. Research it. Sorry: I guess Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews didn’t mention it. And nothing was said in church, so hey?
Google and download the .pdf: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe Peer reviewed by multi PhDs in the Open Physics Journal.
Hath God said…comes with many faces. Rather than attack the essential doctrine of sola scriptura and devine inspiration straight on just plant seeds of doubt by attacking this one source.
Pingback: Answering the Claims of KJV-Onlyism | hipandthigh