[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Connie

I also read that it was Dean Burgon who first recognized that the revisers had not stuck to their promise to do a minimal revision but had in fact produced a completely new Bible. Apparently at first it passed as a mere revision. That's how sneaky this whole thing was. It really helps to know this history I think.

Amen.

Also the issue that swayed me most was understanding that the whole textcrit game was false, and the issue that highlighted that for me was the abject corruption of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

(We could use a page that builds on Brandon's Magic Marker concepts yet includes more of their corruptions, which are often hidden.)

This I read from the Dean, and I approached James White personally and various forums with scholarship folks involved. The answers were either thunderous silence or sad yet humorous disheveled attempts at propping up the absurd. e.g. James White telling me who wonderful it was that there were a dozen hand correcting Sinaiticus because with spectragraphic, or some type of super-xray, techniques .. we can get back to the original .. (corrupt, rejected, written over) .. text. When I heard that .. the game was over, wrapped up, finito.

Shalom,
Steven