Is the World's Oldest Bible a Fake?

This guy is intelligent and did his research. This is not your typical straw man KJV only book. Worth the read.

I'm very excited to have been able to read "Is The 'Worlds Oldest Bible' A Fake?". Some years ago a good friend of mine, a Baptist preacher was serious about convincing me I shouldn't be using any modern Bible. He was not successful, at least not for several years after we lost contact. Over time God kept bringing the issue to my mind. I've watched many videos, read books a plenty, but this is the first to bring substantive facts in a logical and forceful way to not only accept the validity of the argument but become an active proponent of the pure preserved text and it's English translation, the faithful, tried and true King James Bible.

This is undeniable evidence for the sheer insanity that occurred during the gathering of this “manuscript” the academia world hails as “oldest and best”. As Bible believing Christian’s you have to remember that God never trusted His words to Academia. He trusted it to the CHURCH. Further, this books solidifies every aspect of why Bible believing Christians should never trust ANYTHING that comes from the Vatican. They are the great Mystery Babylon who will play a major role in the NWO as mapped out in this book. Tischendorf was a lair, Rome sits on 7 hills worth of lies, and the entire Sinaiticus is not to be trusted. If I could give this book 10 stars I would.

And excellent, well documented book revealing the deliberate corruption, and even going as far as writing those corruptions and ageing them in the 1800s. Revealing and convincing documented evidence of fraud.

This documentation by the author is excellent, which exposes the fake and corrupt Sinaiticus manuscript which is being utilized by so-called “scholars” in order to destroy the Antiochian Syrian type text of the Early Church, which was the basis for the Authorized Holy Bible of 1611. Folks, the 214 English perversions on the market which are all based upon this Roman corrupt text allowed the Devil to destroy and deceive more pastors and other Christians than you can imagine. God promised to preserve His words (Matthew 24:35; I Peter 1:23-25; Psalm 12:6-7; Proverbs 30:5-6, etc.); you do not need some “scholar” in order to learn God’s infallible word.

Amazing research by David Daniels reveals the dodgy basis of most modern bible translations and puts a spotlight on the dubious nature of those 2 Codex so influential in the 19th century. Hopefully this book will be widely read and people will return again to the CR and faith in God's word. Modern translations have removed many words from their bibles and only promoted doubt rather than faith in God's word. Sianiaticus and Vaticanus are now starting to come under the scrutiny that they should have received when they first appeared. They were gladly embraced by most religious scholars in the 19th c. They claimed oldest and best. Daniels questions these claims and his arguments are very strong. Unbelieving scholars will hate this book nearly as much as they hate the KJV. They have based their careers on these 2 texts having credibility. Daniels has put quicksand under these Codex. Great book.

David Daniels presents strong evidence that Codex Sinaiticus is an unreliable document (if not an actual fake) and that any modern Bible translation that is based upon it is not to be trusted. Bible-believing Christians are well advised to stick to the King James, with a 400+ year, PROVEN history of success in bringing the Word of God to sinners. I started my Christian journey with the NIV, but now I would not trust any other version than the KJV. It IS God's preserved word and nothing can replace it. Thanks, David Daniels, for having the courage to share the truth.

If you are familiar with the shrieking conspiracy laden musings of Gail Riplinger, suffice it to say that this is little more than a sequel by a less entertaining producer. If you are not, however, then indulge me in this review of a work that should embarrass but will undoubtedly embolden its advocates, who will no doubt see this (and every other negative review) as proof of their being "on God's side."The book is one giant conspiracy theory. NOT a conspiracy mind you but a conspiracy theory. Proving a conspiracy relies upon evidence. A conspiracy theory, by contrast, is an idea where the evidence does not actually support the conclusion of a conspiracy so the "theory" is developed to explain why the evidence does not exist. A conspiracy requires evidence whereas a conspiracy theory is an explanation of why the evidence does NOT support a conspiracy even though one (allegedly) occurred. Conspiracy theories excel in offering "alternative facts" regarding why no evidence supports the position and focuses on the futile attempt to disprove a negative. After all, it's impossible to disprove something that doesn't even actually exist. In this particular carnival of nonsense, Daniels thinks he proves that Codex Sinaiticus is not a fourth century production but is instead a forged hoax foisted on the world in the 19th century as part of a New World Order conspiracy designed to lead people away from the use of the King James Bible. If that assessment sounds vaguely familiar it's because 25 years ago, an "assistant professor" at Kent State University named Gail Riplinger promoted the very same idea with one notable exception: so far as I can tell, Riplinger seems to at least grant that Codex Sinaiticus is a fourth century document. In other words, Daniels's book is nothing more than repackaged Riplinger with the added claim of a hoax manuscript. Being mentioned in the company of Gail Riplinger is not something anyone conscious would boast about.Before beginning the criticism proper, there is a major question that has to be answered: for whom exactly was this monstrosity written? It is s book that literally has NO audience, so why was it written? This book will not persuade anyone even remotely familiar with textual criticism or paleography, not because those people are part of a vast conspiracy but because it betrays a total lack of understanding of these areas. There is no need whatsoever to pour this information into the KJV Onlyists who already rejected Sinaiticus anyway, having been told for over a century now that the reason Sinaiticus IS a still extant fourth century document is because it was "recognized as a bad copy" and "set aside." And the simple truth is that maybe - at most - 1% (and I think even that number is too high) of church members actually care all that much about the manuscript tradition and history. They read whichever translation they have and are content. Since KJVO pastors make up a very small number of congregational overseers, there is simply not a major audience awaiting this book. So why was it written when simple common sense would inform an author that the book has no real audience? The only real possible major shift that might occur is that recently indoctrinated KJVOs (like Bryan Ross or Brian Shepherd, which begs the question of whether the name Brian/Bryan causes one to be KJVO) will begin advocating it and imploding their credibility further. In short, Daniels has written a book without audience.THE DAVID DANIELS CONSPIRACY THEORYDaniels writes from the viewpoint of an advocacy of the Ruckmanite King James Only view. He refers to the KJV either directly or indirectly as the "preserved" Bible or Word (or references Greek preserved texts) over FIFTY times in a 300-page book. And the necessity of his conspiracy theory becomes clear when he repeatedly impugns Sinaiticus as the primary reason that people have moved away from the KJV to "modern versions." Daniels's conspiracy theory begins - like virtually every nonsensical KJVO theory - with the notion of there being TWO "streams of Bibles" that consist of the good majority at Antioch and the bad minority of Alexandria. Because Daniels writes from a rather radical dispensationalist point of view that sees the Roman Catholic Church as "the wicked whore of Babylon," they become the perpetrators of the fraud that will ultimately lead to a one-world church and religion. After erecting the absurd edifice of the two streams, Daniels jumps into the wild idea of Manly Hall and the New World Order trying to replace the KJV with a new Bible. Daniels goes further, alleging that President Franklin Roosevelt was - and I quote - "a 33rd Degree Mason" (33, 224) who "loved Hall and his occultic NWO teachings" (33). It has never failed to amaze me how many people who aren't even involved in secret societies can somehow know everything about what goes on and who exactly is what level in the secret society. Presumably, these secret societies aren't so secret. Daniels then distorts a quotation by Hall to suggest that Hall is part of a large conspiracy that goes back to 1844, the year Tischendorf first discovered what eventually came to be called Sinaiticus, to replace the KJV. Daniels further selectively quotes - by which I mean flat out distorts - other works by Hall, all available online, to try and suggest we now are living in a time that Hall says "they" could change across "five generations." This conspiracy - in Daniels's presumably sober imagination - was primarily overseen by having Constantine Tischendorf find Sinaiticus and bring it out of St Catherine's monastery to present to the world as a fourth century manuscript. Upon finding out he had been fooled, Tischendorf then - according to David Daniels as informed by "researcher" Steven Avery - "darkens" Sinaiticus so as to fool everyone into thinking the manuscript is older than it really is. From this point, Daniels makes the illogical jump to saying that to accept the Alexandrian text is to accept the Alexandrian scholars who wrote it and thus to accept the Roman Catholic Apocrypha as authentic Scripture. He then basically writes off anything Tischendorf had to say about any subject as a lie (with one notable exception: more on this cherry picking in a moment). The rest of the book revolves around this excursion into speculation and ends with Daniels basically thinking Constantine Simonides authored Sinaiticus around 1840-41. No chance is missed to insult, impugn, disparage, or slander Tischendorf while granting Simonides a free pass. In the end, Daniels decides on the basis of a specious letter by an interesting "Pug Henry" character who just happens to wind up in the right place at the right time to witness Tischendorf's long-running hoax, that the whole thing is a charade and Tischendorf a liar. Of course, in his lack of being as skeptical of sources who endorse his theories, it never occurs to Daniels that this - by definition - makes Pug Henry (whose name in this breathless and mindless theory is Kallinikos) part of the conspiracy and thus just as guilty as Tischendorf. One must question why Daniels feels he can trust such a source that by his own other standards would also have to be untrustworthy but such logical consistency is foreign to Daniels's apologetic.Numerous errors permeate this monstrosity:1) MIS-CITATIONS AND MISSED SOURCESOver the last decade or so, Steven Avery himself has become well-known among not just Internet posters but even a few textual critics as a person who loves to cite old public domain works that he can find simply by finding it via a phrase on Google books. Up-to-date research is missing from his database, and Daniels's work is replete with enough out-of-date and wrong information to suggest he did nothing more than pass on quotes. Numerous examples may be cited.On page 75, Daniels selectively quotes a 1913 book on Textual Criticism by J.A. McClymont as saying, "Sinaiticus...was rescued from oblivion...by the famous critic, Tischendorf...and now lies in the Library of St. Petersburg. It is written on snow-white vellum, supposed to have been made from the skin of antelopes."Daniels - or more probably Avery given his repetitive history of quote misrepresentation - conveniently didn't bother to mention that in the sentence before the one chopped, McClymont takes the position that Sinaiticus is probably one of the fifty Bibles commissioned by Constantine, which of course makes it the fourth century. Furthermore, the words that Daniels edited right after Sinaiticus are "which probably emanated from Egypt." In other words, Daniels wants to enlist McClymont for his cause as an infallible source because of the words "snow white" but doesn't want the reader to know that this didn't create any sort of problem for McClymont seeing it as a fourth century document.Just prior to this selective quotation, Daniels cites the 1910 "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics" and again gets hung up on the words "snow white parchment." Daniels doesn't footnote this source, but not only is it on page 583, but it also VERY EXPLICITLY says this document is "the oldest parchment we possess" just a few words earlier and dates it to the fourth century. Once again, why is this deception necessary? Is this how Daniels (Avery) thinks historical inquiry is performed?On page 100, Daniels informs us that "After Sinaiticus was published, people all over the world started writing notes in their Bibles that a part of the word of God didn't really belong." This is an absurdly false notion given that the 1611 had notes.In chapter 23 (pp 179-92), Daniels again invokes a conspiracy by saying that for years he could only see the same one page of Sinaiticus, the final chapter of John. He cites three sources that show ONLY this particular page. But why this is a mystery is confusing unless Daniels is just not very well-read on the subject. Multiple pages of the codex appear in Skeat and Milne's 1938 book, "Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus," one of the earliest full treatments of the subject. Two different pages are shown in Milne's 1951 book, "Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus." (Amazingly enough, the two pictures of Alexandrinus in that book show a lighter one and a darker one, so presumably Daniels and Avery think Alexandrinus must have been aged as well).This major omission has major consequences. Had either of these two been more interested in actual research than in propaganda, they would have noticed that Milne and Skeat touched on one of their supposed "proofs" that these were coffee stains. "There are also a number of brown stains, perhaps due to drops of oil or grease from the lamps and candles of pious readers in the past" (71). They even note the ink has run due to water spots. They further discuss the fact that it was necessary to remove the glossy surface of the animal skins so that the writing would be sustained on vellum. They point out that both medieval AND modern scribes used a variety of substances, including "powdered pumice, powdered cuttle-fish bone, sandarac, chalk, whiting, &c. or combinations of these." They go further in noting that "the harsh scouring of the pages suggests fine sand" (79) and that this treatment, known as pouncing, was actually done by the scribe in the fourth century. The point is that there are many other explanations for the stained pages than a conspiracy.Yet another mis-citation removes all doubt that Daniels is merely a Riplinger-style clone when he completely distorts a quotation by Jurgen Gottschlich. The part that Daniels conveniently excised is in bold script:"Uspensky was no manuscript expert, had received far less academic training than Tischendorf, and did not belong to the exclusive inner circle of European palaeographers, so he was unacquainted with Tischendorf's publication of the Codex Frederico-Augustanus - indeed, just like the monks of the monastery, he failed to detect how old the manuscript was and consequently how valuable. Critical textual research was as rare in Russia's Orthodox Church as it was among the Sinaite monks, as Uspensky would amply demonstrate in a subsequent dispute with Tischendorf.Uspensky would resort to the "heretical" allegation regarding Sinaiticus because his own Russian Bible was of the Byzantine text-type. But Daniels hid the information that calls Uspensky's text critical knowledge into question. Given that Tischendorf had left with 43 leaves in 1844 (nobody disputes this point) and published a facsimile in 1846, Uspensky was without excuse for knowing this. He simply wasn't well-informed, and this calls to attention the problem Daniels has with doing nothing more than playing his juvenile game of "quote the scholar." The only people who argue thusly are those incapable of doing actual firsthand research, a deficiency evident in both Daniels's book and the ignorant Internet postings of his so-called "researcher Steven Avery"Surely the most egregious omission, however, is that not one single notation of J.K. Elliott's 1982 dissertation, "The Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair" occurs. The seminal work regarding the Simonides affair is not even acknowledged to exist. What makes this amusing is that Daniels's lead researcher (Avery) has flippantly dismissed Elliott's work because it doesn't cite Farrer (even though it cites more recent books and is far more extensive than Farrer's work). No, since it doesn't mention Farrer's work (we're told), it's "deficient." Fair enough. At this point we can now dismiss Daniels's book for omitting the most important work of the last forty years regarding the subject of Simonides.2) HE SAID, HE SAIDDaniels's entire book consists of a juvenile form of argumentation that functions thusly: pick a quotation by an individual that can be used in opposition to the standard theory, ASSUME that quotation is a documented fact, and then demand that someone who holds another position explain why the standard theory "hides" the opposing information. Daniels engages this tactic throughout the book. For example - borrowing heavily from Avery's post-2013 Internet postings - Daniels cites the claims of Porfiry Uspensky claiming (283) that there are "only four of them" (Bibles we are told) in 1845. This claim is never footnoted so the interested reader can investigate for himself, and Daniels tells us someone else did the translation. This low level of "scholarship" is bad enough, but what makes it worse is that earlier on the same page Daniels is trying to 'prove' that Sinaiticus is late with a quotation from Bentley's "Secrets of Mt. Sinai" where William Turner (in 1815) takes the word of mid-1700s scholar Richard Pococke that "they had only three Bibles" and "they had no rare manuscripts." Daniels pretends that these statements align to "prove" that there were only three Bibles in 1815 but another one that he is now suggesting was placed there sometime between 1815 and 1845. Daniels then pontificates with Avery's juvenile description of this as "poof" provenance.Unfortunately, Daniels - who claims Chris Pinto suggested he get this book - either passed on an unreliable quote from Pinto or he just hopes nobody will check out his work. Simply look at the actual quote on the page Daniels cites: "In the mid-eighteenth century, an English bishop named Richard Pococke had found his way into the library of the monks of St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai where he saw a large number of manuscripts. He reported that none of them were valuable ones. He was wrong, but his error misled others. William Turner, who visited the monastery in 1815, reported, 'To my enquiries after manuscripts and a library the priests answered that they had only three Bibles, and I took their word more readily, as Pococke states, they had no rare manuscripts.' So he came away empty-handed." And on the very next page - after listing some of the valuable things taken from the monastery - "In fact, the monks were well aware that they possessed priceless treasures and that their visitors would have liked to take them away."Quite frankly, Daniels should give more credence to the idea that the monks simply lied to either Turner or Uspensky or perhaps even both. He should also do a better job not twisting parts of the story that contradict his claims.3) FAILING TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLDVIEW OF OTHERSDaniels's polemical portion of his presentation is entirely dependent on the idea that dispensationalism is the accurate (and right) eschatology. If this position of Daniels's is wrong - and it most probably is - then the Satanic conspiracy theory that is going to lead all of mankind to a one world religion and one universal Bible is nothing but an active imagination hard at work. What's amusing is that Daniels (and a number of dispensationalists) think that the Catholic Church is trying to create a one-world church for an eschatology they don't even endorse. But whatever the merits or demerits of that system, the fact is that Daniels's entire polemical approach is destroyed if dispensationalism is untrue. Such is the fragile nature of his argument.Daniels (again following the Avery train of thought) tries to fit the work of Dirk Jongkind into his conspiracy theory, even suggesting that Jongkind might actually agree with the KJV Onlyists regarding how Tischendorf got the manuscript. The reader looks in vain to realize that at no point does Daniels point out that Jongkind would never in a million years agree with the idea that Sinaiticus is a 19th century production. But this is typical of their work: suggest the big scholars who at other times are part of a conspiracy agree with YOUR version of events and hope the reader doesn't pay much attention to the deception inherent in the argument.4) INCONSISTENT HANDLING OF THE EVIDENCEOne of Daniels's more amusing attempts at illogical nonsense occurs on page 51, when he tells us that the last 12 verses of Mark are in 618 out of 620 extant Greek manuscripts, missing only in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. What makes this so illogical is that just a paragraph earlier, Daniels is complaining about the missing verses at 1 John 5:7-8 (the Comma Johanneum) but doesn't DARE bring up the Greek manuscript count at all for good reason: the passage only appears in about nine manuscripts out of around 501. In other words, Daniels doesn't REALLY care about the "majority" of manuscripts, it's just a showy argument. If he did care about them then he'd have no choice but to abandon 1 John 5:7, as all wise scholars do.Another area where Daniels follows the train first engineered by Chris Pinto and parroted by Steven Avery - cite James Farrer's propaganda about Simonides in 1907 but INTENTIONALLY OMIT Farrer's conclusion: "In literary ability, he surpassed all his contemporaries, but unhappily the essential element of truth formed no part of his mental constitution" (Farrer, 1907: 66). These men are quick to cite century-plus old "research" but don't seem to want to broadcast the fact that even Farrer, the most sympathetic evaluator of Simonides (and incompetent in his analysis), basically says Simonides is a liar. Why are they not quick to bring this out? Because all three are incompetent researchers, propagandists motivated by getting rid of evidence they don't like. Consequently, they cherry pick only the parts that will support their preconceptions and hope nobody brings up the rest.5) 2427 AND A CLASSIC NON SEQUITORDespite the fact it literally has nothing at all to do with the subject, Daniels tries to cloak his argument with an appeal to MS 2427, formerly claimed to be a Category I manuscript but now recognized to be a modern forgery. Daniels is hoping the reader will draw the conclusion, "Well since they were wrong about X and it was a forgery then maybe Y is a forgery, too." Of course, the two situations don't even compare and this is nothing more than a naive form of the non sequitor fallacy. The authenticity of 2427 was contested from an early date and NOT by an arrogant calligrapher with a reputation for forgery who was bent on revenge against someone. Robert P. Casey - as early as 1947 (the manuscript arrived at Chicago in 1937) - suggested it might be derived from a 19th century NT critical edition. Daniels also excludes the fact - quite relevant - that just because Prussian blue was not available until 1704 did not necessarily exclude the idea that it was a poor touch up job. In 2006, Stephen Carlson proved the source of 2427 conclusively. But the question a well-trained mind has to aim at Daniels is, "So what?"Daniels snidely claims, "Thinking it was fake didn't stop their agenda." But what agenda, David? It was textual critics and actual skilled researchers capable of reading 2427 who investigated actual problems with the manuscript, rendered a verdict and then (key point here) notified the rest of the world of their discovery. Nobody involved with this discovery was a King James Onlyist intent on getting rid of evidence undesired. The research surrounding 2427 proves - contrary to Daniels's allegations of conspiracy - that researchers actually wrestle with REAL contradictory claims.What Daniels proves is not that textual critics are stupid but rather that they wouldn't have covered up for Tischendorf either in 1859 or today. It's amusing to watch Daniels seemingly oblivious to the fact that if it wasn't for a textual critic doing the hard work, Daniels himself wouldn't even know this.But 2427 doesn't even apply to Sinaiticus anyway. For starters, the only challenge to the authenticity of Sinaiticcus came from someone who had his own agenda (revenge) anyway. Secondly, it has been evaluated and re-evaluated a number of times. Thirdly - and this part is rather important - the easiest way to prove Sinaiticus is a fake is to do exactly what was done here.....discover the ACTUAL exemplar dating from sometime later than the fourth century. Siimonides claimed three sources and collation work, none of which he ever produced. Of course, a conspiracy theorist simply would say that the demonic cover up involved getting rid of these materials, too. That's the genius of conspiracy theories: they require nothing but an active imagination.6) DANIELS DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND BASIC TEXTUAL CRITICISMWhile this is hardly a surprise, one would think a little more humility would be found in his work. Daniels totally misses the point when he declares (193), "The basic principle of Textual Criticism is 'the harder reading is to be preferred.'" To anyone with even a scintilla of knowledge of the subject, the problem with this phrase is immediately obvious: the overriding principle of textual criticism is NOT the harder reading but is, in fact, "the most likely original is that reading that best explains the rise of ALL the other variants." This is true whether one is advocating reasoned eclecticism, Byzantine priority, or any other school of text critical thought.7) DANIELS ISN'T EVEN REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE SIMONIDES STORY AND YET HE BELIEVES THE FORGEROf all the shortcomings in this book, the most egregious is the fact that David Daniels is clearly not even remotely familiar with the claims of Constantine Simonides. Anyone who is familiar with the story of Simonides knows immediately that Simonides is lying about virtually everything. It doesn't require much skill save for a minimal degree of critical thinking. What comes through clearly in the ranting pages is that Daniels hates Sinaiticus because it so clearly contradicts his precious KJV, and he is willing to do pretty much anything (including regurgitating the nonsense that the LXX is post-apostolic era) to get rid of the problems Sinaiticus creates for his bibliology. Thus, the claims of Simonides permit Daniels to dismiss any evidence to the contrary.In chapter 29 (262), Daniels lays out for us his basic allegation against Tischendorf. "Tischendorf was set up" (which can truthfully be translated as, "It was all a big conspiracy"). "They" set up a "made to order manuscript" for Tischendorf to find on Mt Sinai. Tischendorf then - amazingly enough - falls into their plan by taking only SOME of Sinaiticus in his 1844 visit (isn't it amazing how they can set it up no matter whether he takes part of it or all of it?) But Daniels tells us "...in 1859, he figured out it was fake." Daniels then tells us that AS A RESULT of this discovery in 1859, Tischendorf "came upon a plan. He darkened Sinaiticus with, maybe lemon juice, like Simonides' friend says he did." Yes, Daniels is certain that the manuscript was darkened and yet he doesn't know who did it (maybe Tischendorf, maybe he had help), what he used ("maybe lemon juice"), or when he did it (maybe 1853, maybe 1859, sometime in the 1850s). Not only that, but he doesn't know where he did it and can only speculate as to "why" he did it. This accusation fails every single basic test of investiation and yet Daniels makes the claim. This is truly amazing given that Simonides' version of the story says he discovered this in 1852 as a darkened manuscript made to look older. How could Tischendorf have seen a white manuscript in 1859 that was dark in 1852? And when exactly did this friend (clearly supposed to be Kallinikos) SEE Tischendorf do this in 1859?But there is a huge problem for the Simonides apologists: there is NO EVIDENCE that anyone named Kallinikos actually witnessed these events and then wrote a letter supporting Simonides's version of events. In fact, Simonides produced only a trio of letters and never once produced his so-called star witness. Why? Because this individual didn't exist (at least in 1862). A letter purporting to be from Kallinikos suddenly appears in December 1862. This letter - an incredible exercise in showing that Kallinikos was more of a genie in a bottle capable of appearing at will than he was an actual supporter of Simonides - informs us that Kallinikos saw Simonides - and Simonides ONLY - writing Sinaiticus, that he later SAW him take it Constantinople and deliver it there to someone, that this was presented to the Emporer of Russia, that it was left in the library awaiting Simonides's return, that Tischendorf tore a small part away and vanished with it, that Tischendorf later returned and took the rest of it and lied about how he took it, and says, "All these things, then, I know, being on the spot..." Seriously - if we are to believe the "star witness" that Simonides never produced, he somehow managed to see all of these things by appearing at will whenever it was necessary. He also claims to "know" that the Codex was "cleaned, with a solution of herbs" to change the color. (How he knows this is never explained). And there's no backing down given that Kallinikos claimed he "saw it in the hands of Tischendorf and recognized the work, and I first mentioned it to Simonides." Of course, why Kallinikos would not sound the alarm in 1859 after he had allegedly SEEN the first theft in 1844 and had ALSO seen the alleged aging of the manuscript, presumably also in 1844 makes sense only to those who believe professional wrestling is a real contest. Amazingly enough, we are supposed to believe that Kallinikos was on Mt Athos when Simonides (allegedly) wrote it AND he was on Sinai to see every single key development. Forrest Gump has nothing on this level of omnipresence.Of course, Simonides never produced Kallinikos - because the latter was a phantom. Not that there wasn't someone named Kallinikos in the 1841 Mt Athos catalog, but because this person simply wasn't around to substantiate the claims made in the alleged letter. Simonides's critics produced a couple of suspects, neither of whom was the "real" one, but Simonides - for all of his taunting - couldn't produce a person who didn't actually exist (at least in 1862). Furthermore, the Kallinkos they DID find (on Sinai) no less - said very clearly that Simonides according to someone who lived there - said that Simonides had never even been to Sinai! Obviously, if Simonides (who didn't even bother to mention this alleged trip in is 1854 biography, an omission noted by Tregelles) was not on Sinai in 1852 then he could not possibly have seen the aging of the manuscript in which Daniels is placing his entire case. The simple truth is this: Simonides claimed he had independent witnesses, none of whom he ever produced. He then later claimed that he was intimates with this Kallinikos, who allegedly wrote a letter supporting him, but he never produced this alleged independent witness. Why? For the simple reason this person didn't exist and didn't write these alleged letters of support. Let's face it: if there was a real Kallinikos who actually saw all of these things then producing him to validate the story wouldn't have been difficult at all just like producing the materials used to make the manuscript would not have been difficult either. Simonides never produced the actual person - despite continued taunting of having people that could validate his story - for only one reason: no such actual person existed that did what Simonides said.(I have a more extensive review online at the Bible Versions Discussion Board under the poster handle Maestroh on the KJV Only section. This is an edited version of same).

This book is amazing. So much evidence to prove that the Sinaiticus is a fake document. David Daniels has done an awesome job researching the history of the Sinaiticus, and it's lack of provenance.This book is a must read for anyone who wants to know what the Sinaiticus looks like. Where it came from, and how it is not an ancient document at all.

Another great book that examines and exposes the lies and poison that have stealthily become accepted into the Christian church. For your own sake and the sake of the purity of Christ’s church read and act upon the information provided by Dr David Daniels.

This book reads almost like a mystery story but true! I highly recommend it if you read modern translations of the Bible where you can find out exactly where they came from.Read KJV! At least we know where it's text came from.

Content:5 StarsBook Quality: 2 StarsPoor book quality (printed by Amazon Fulfillment Poland), some pages are really loose, I'm afraid to turn pages.