The Great Bible Hoax of 1881: Best Review of the Debate, by Hiram Diaz

http://greatbiblehoax.blogspot.com/2013/12/best-review-of-debate.html

More

Next Blog

Create Blog

Sign In

THIS BL OG IS ABOU T WESTCOTT AN D HORT'S BIBL E REVISION OF 1881 AN D AL L THE M ODERN B I B L E S T H A T O W E T H E I R E R R O R S T O I T, A B L I G H T O N T H E C H U R C H . T H I S I S A B U R G O N I N S P I R E D B L O G , N O T A K I N G - J A M E S - O N LY B L O G !

S U N D A Y, D E C E M B E R 1 5 , 2 0 1 3

PA G E S

Best Review of the Debate, by Hiram Diaz

Chris Pinto posted this at his site, and HERE is the original source. There is also a link to the debate itself there. I don't know who Hiram Diaz is but he absolutely nailed it about the debate: ====================================== DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE WHITE VS. PINTO DEBATE by Hiram Diaz Although I enjoy listening to debates, Im not a big fan of them. This may sound contradictory, so let me explain. On the one hand, debates are a great way to become familiar with different points of view, be they non-Christian or Christian. In this respect, I appreciate the knowledge that can be gained from assessing each point and counterpoint making up the debate. However, on the other hand, personality can often take the place of sound reasoning. The more aggressively one pursues his debate opponent, for instance, the stronger he appears to the audience, as one who is in the right. Why? Because his personality trumps the weakness of his argumentation. Thus, debates can swing in the favor of men who present well, as opposed to presenting their case well. The debate over whether or not Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery, a debate between James White and Chris Pinto was, unfortunately, one that made me dislike debates even more. Before I listened to the background information that Pinto presented in his documentary and on his podcast/radio show, I was pretty sure James Whites statements about Pintos ideas being far-fetched and based on loose threads woven together by conspiracy were right. But when the debate took place a couple nights ago, I saw that Dr. White was wrong. Pinto presented documented history that challenged the official story regarding Simonides (i.e. the man who

Home Burgon: Revision POISONING THE RIVER OF LIFE Bishop Wordsworth: CHANGE FOR CHANGE'S SAKE

WHAT THIS BLOG IS ABOUT

SOM E EXTERN AL SOURCES ON THIS SUBJECT

Burgon: Revision Revised online Burgon: Revision Revised, Amazon listing Burgon The Last 12 Verses of Mark online Burgon: Causes of Corruption online Burgon The Traditional Text online Online biography of Burgon Vol 2 Online biography of Burgon Vol 1 KJV Translators to the Reader Philip Mauro 1924 book online: Which Version? Very clear introductory discussion of the Burgonite view Pickering, online book, Identity of the New Testament Text Pickering summing up the problems of the eclectic (W&H-based) texts Pickering answering objections esp. concerning age of manuscripts Pickering on purity of early church Bible transmission Pickering on last 12 verses of Mark

1 of 5

12/18/2013 12:56 PM

The Great Bible Hoax of 1881: Best Review of the Debate, by Hiram Diaz

http://greatbiblehoax.blogspot.com/2013/12/best-review-of-debate.html

claimed to have penned Codex Sinaiticus); Dr. White, however, did not refute Pintos challenge. Dr. White appealed to authority, asking Pinto if he had ever collated manuscripts of the Bible or if he was competent in Greek, in an attempt to show that Pintos ignorance was the only justification he had for believing that the case of Simonides was not a closed case. But this kind of reasoning is fallacious. Pinto was not arguing from the standpoint of one who knew either the collation process or was competent in, if not a scholar of, koine Greek. His credentials in these two fields (i.e. manuscript collation and ancient Greek) is completely irrelevant. Pintos argument was drawn from historical records regarding the events and persons surrounding Codex Sinaiticus. Dr. White, therefore, had no reason to ask for such credentials. If the historical data Pinto presented are to be jettisoned, then Dr. White should have presented an argument in favor of ditching the historical sources to which Pinto made reference. But Dr. White did no such thing. Also, Dr. White reduced Pintos cogent reasoning to a conspiracy theory, a term which is often used in American media to dismiss viewpoints that contradict the official story. And Dr. White used it in just that way. In other words, Dr. White uncritically dismissed Pintos argument to a conspiracy theory. In short, here are the problems I had with the debate: 1. Dr. White argued fallaciously, appealing to authority when no such appeal was relevant to the matter at hand. 2. Dr. White made assertions, central to his argument, that cannot be empirically verified. For instance, he claimed that the task of manuscript collation could not be done by a nineteen year old. This is not an argument, nor is it an empirically verifiable fact, as it is a universal proposition. There are many people in history who have accomplished great things at even younger ages. Are these people historical fictions? If they are real people, then are the historical accounts of their great abilities to be dismissed as conspiracy theories or overblown accounts of otherwise normal individuals? This is not a point that can be taken very seriously, moreover, considering the renown that Simonides had for his unusual

Daniel Wallace, Why So Many Bible Versions? (see my critique below) Dean Burgon Society -- good book source. Burgon is the best critic of Westcott and Hort Way of Life -- KJV-only, thorough historical background, book source AV1611 Bible page -- some good KJV-only arguments, but caution: ALL change to the KJV is anathema to them Trinitarian Bible Society KJV Bibles Design discussion Bible Researcher -- very aggressive defender of the new versions, so I disagree with him Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle/Aland -- good job on this Same site as above, on why he's King James Only

OLDER POSTS I DID ON ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM

All my discussions of False Bibles at Faith's Corner Lengthy response to another blogger, pt. 1 Lengthy response to another blogger, pt. 2 Some James White comments Dean Burgon: Beleaguered white knight of the Bible versions wars Some posts comparing the versions on Psalm 91 My critique of Daniel Wallace's "Why So Many Versions?" How the Bible versions contribute to liberalism and feminism by undermining inerrancy

M Y OT HER BL OGS

The Fantasy of Evolution

Grand Canyon East-West

2 of 5

12/18/2013 12:56 PM

The Great Bible Hoax of 1881: Best Review of the Debate, by Hiram Diaz

http://greatbiblehoax.blogspot.com/2013/12/best-review-of-debate.html

intellectual gifts as a young man. Whether or not he was a prodigy, I dont know. However, when there is evidence of men speaking highly of Simonides superior intellectual endowments, and there is no evidence to prove that a nineteen year old cannot collate biblical manuscripts and form a unique copy of the Bible from those collated texts, the testimony of writers contemporaneous with Simonides actually holds weight, where Dr. Whites assertion has none. Chris Pinto presented a logically cogent case for his position. Dr. James White neither presented a logically cogent case, nor did he succeed in refuting Pintos position.

Mounded Uplift
16 hours ago

Faith's Corner
Nelson Mandela was a Communist Terrorist
3 days ago

Hidden Glory
What sort of head covering?
1 month ago

BL OG AR CHIVE

Again, Pinto presented actual historical documentation that drills numerous holes into the official story regarding Simonides, whereas Dr. White simply dismissed Pintos sources, failing to provide counter evidence to Pintos argument. Consequently, it is Pinto, in my opinion, who won the debate. And what is troubling to me is that many will not (i.)be able to identify Dr. Whites fallacious reasoning and (ii.)will depend on personalities in their assessment of the debate.
POST E D BY FA IT H A K A C ON N IE AT 1 2 : 0 1 PM L A BE L S: C H R IS PIN TO, DE BAT E , H IR A M DIA Z, JA M ES W H IT E, SIM ON IDE S

2013 (14) December (8) Nice Comment on Pinto's Post-Debate radio show Best Review of the Debate, by Hiram Diaz Chris Pinto's assessment of the debate: not a mat... Truth Lost the Debate in my Opinion First Flash Mob of the Season / Plus debate schedu...

NO COMMENTS: POST A COMMENT Please at least give a pseudonym for your Comment. Thanks. Comments will be moderated before being posted.

The Debate Is Well Under Way James White Begins the Debate a Week Early The Success of the Vatican and the Jesuits against... November (1) September (1) August (2) April (1) January (1)

Comment as: 2012 (19)

Publish

2011 (39) 2010 (9) 2009 (22)

Newer Post

Home

Older Post

ABOU T M E

3 of 5

12/18/2013 12:56 PM

The Great Bible Hoax of 1881: Best Review of the Debate, by Hiram Diaz

http://greatbiblehoax.blogspot.com/2013/12/best-review-of-debate.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

V IEW M Y C OM PL ET E PR OF IL E

LABELS

2 Timothy 3:16 (1) 666 (1) AION (1) Alexandrians corruption (6) altered scripture (2) bad English (4) bad Greek (1) Bad translation (2) Bible Researcher (1) Burgon's Damning Facts (4) Catholicism (3) Change for change's sake (6) Chris Pinto (14) Christmas (1) Code of sevens (1) Conspiracy thinking (1) Counter Reformation (1) Critical Text (1) Daniel Wallace (2) David Cloud (2) Dean Burgon (8) Debate (5) Ecumenism (1) Emergent Church (1) Extremist KJV-onlies (3) Hiram Diaz (1) Isaiah 14:12 (1) Isaiah 32:17 (1) James White (9) Jehovah (1) Jesuits (2) John MacArthur (2) KJV 1611 preface (1) KJV superiority (2) Kurt Aland (1) Last twelve verses of Mark (2) Lord's Prayer (1)

4 of 5

12/18/2013 12:56 PM

The Great Bible Hoax of 1881: Best Review of the Debate, by Hiram Diaz

http://greatbiblehoax.blogspot.com/2013/12/best-review-of-debate.html

Loyola (1) Luke 2:14 (1) Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1) Muslims (1) New King James (1) Septuagint (1) Simonides (7) Sinaiticus (5) Sodom and Gomorrah (1) Tares Among the Wheat (1) Textual families (1) Textus Receptus (2) The Great Apostasy (1) Tischendorf (3) Titus 3:10 (1) Updating the KJV (5) Version comparisons (3)

5 of 5

12/18/2013 12:56 PM