The 4 gospels was signed and dated. All before 62 AD!

Incredible information.

Over the past 30 years or so, I studied religions, and was always, even last week, confronted with textual Criticism proving the manuscripts of the NT as unreliable.

The so called “Facts” is that we do not have the original manuscripts, and what we have, only date from 300 years after Christ. Actually, we do have partial manuscripts that dates from 100 year upward after Christ’s ascension, but there is no way one can convince the Bible criticizer that these copies are the true re written replacements on the original Gospels by the hands of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Furthermore, there are constructed accusations against the Gospels where it is said that there was a “Q” source for the writings of Matthew and Luke, and that Mark was written first where Matthew and Luke actually critique Mark. Even if there isnot a single manuscript discovered to give credence to this claim.

The above "Textual critisizm" claim concludes that the Christians do not have any authenticated manuscripts, and that a lot of changing and assumptions were introduced into the Gospels by Christians to deify Jesus, making the NT questionable.

In this regard, the Christian religion is just as questionable as the scriptures they adhere too. Compare this with the Quran and the Gospels are not in a better situation such as an Allah who "Protected" his revelations,

Bible criticizers creates the imagery that the Christian New Testament is one huge concoction where its Authors are unknown, the writers of the Gospels are confused, and many changes was introduced into the Gospels resulting in so many variants, or “Versions” in the New Testament.

Sad to say, I have to agree on the current evidence, it is partially true!

Lets see what I learned.
Today we have only 2 different New Testaments. (We have numerous NT translations, versions and many more personalised Bibles each carrying their own copurights as if God's Word can be copyrighted by some translator of the NT.

One set of Manuscripts is known through the King James version, the Texus Receptus which is named the Byzantium family (F35), the other is known as the New International translation and al the other “New” translations we see today belonging to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts known as the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. (There are actually 4 families of NT manuscripts, but we will stay with the Byzantium and Alexandrean families, for the others are very small or even represented by the 2 bigger ones.)

This weekend I bought myself a KJVER sword bible, and I found an article that stunned me to my soul!

“In 2008, Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering (Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary in Greek Exegesis, Ph.D. University of Toronto in Linguistics) discovered colophons in numerous ancient manuscripts that contained the Gospels.”

Here is the article link:

http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...ptic_Problem_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_ThD_PhD.pdf

Guess what is a Colophon?

It is the Author’s name, and the date when he “published” his book. This is found at the end of the Book, and not as we have it today at the beginning. Sort of the signature of the author!

And, just take a moment to comprehend what they found!

John was published 32 Years after the ascension. = Making this book published and signed off in 62AD

Luke 15 Years after the ascension =45AD

Mark 10 Years = 40AD and

Matthew 8 years = 38 AD.

Guys, this is something incredible if true. The Apostles SIGNED THEIR WORK OFF AND WROTE A DATE ON THE YEAR OF PUBLICATION!
Then I realised something I suspected throughout all my studies.

These Colophon’s were all found in the Texus Receptus manuscripts (Byzantium), which is the ones we know as the King James Version!

Now, why I never learned about the above is a worrying factor. Does our Christian apologists know about this?

Anyway, I now have evidence that the Authors of the Gospels are the ones it is named as such.

And the dates of the NT was between 8 years to 32 Years after Jesus ascended into heaven.

And that the King James version is the true Word of God.

And lastly, the Authors of the Gospels signed their work off in person.

All the other manuscripts with all those terrible errors are mere secondary copies of what the Christians today have in their hands.
I forwarded this post to the Dalas seminar through a close friend to RD Wallace, who collects digital photos of all the Greek manuscripts to confirm what I learned is not just some bit of fake news. If there is anyone here that can elaborate, please do so.
Haleluja!

Did he publish in a well respected professional journal? If not why not?

Subduction Zone said:

Did he publish in a well respected professional journal? If not why not?

Click to expand...

Ithis is what I want to find out.
He has a lot of publications, unfortunately all in Portuguese.
Thats why I try to get confirmation on his work.
He also published 2 books, one on the topic of colophones and one which has the full Greek Gospels.
This is again publications well above my intellect, and I would love a simpler down to earth explanation on his studies.
Anyhow, I established that the "F35" claims on colophones are actually true, and I have seen 4 manuscripts with reference to it.

if this is the case that the TR contains these name of author and date of publishing, I will be delighted.
I also searched the web in an attempt to see if anyone discredits the claim, and can not find any.

SA Huguenot said:

Ithis is what I want to find out.
He has a lot of publications, unfortunately all in Portuguese.
Thats why I try to get confirmation on his work.
He also published 2 books, one on the topic of colophones and one which has the full Greek Gospels.
This is again publications well above my intellect, and I would love a simpler down to earth explanation on his studies.
Anyhow, I established that the "F35" claims on colophones are actually true, and I have seen 4 manuscripts with reference to it.

if this is the case that the TR contains these name of author and date of publishing, I will be delighted.
I also searched the web in an attempt to see if anyone discredits the claim, and can not find any.

Click to expand...

From what I can see of his work he does not appear to be very reliable.

Subduction Zone said:

From what I can see of his work he does not appear to be very reliable.

Click to expand...

All I know is that the TR manuscripts are the only ones with Colophon's.
That is what I need to confirm.
I dont care if Pinkering is as reliable as fate.
My question is only one.
Is it true that the Byzantium manuscriptes, especially the F35 MMS, contains colophon's that say, Matthew, 8 After ascention, Mark 10 after Ascention, Luke 15 AA, John 32 AA.
If this is true, I dont need any evidence on Textual critisizm to show me which MMS are to be trusted.
It is like me collecting Bibles, of which I have over 250.
each one tells me what version, and when printed.
Now that is evidence, not the reliability of any Man.
Hel, I am a man, and I am as trustworthy as a good man can be.
Very poorly.

In mss. studies, a colophon is just a note by a scribe. It doesn't tell us who wrote the text, only who copied it, and that late scribes gave a work an early date doesn't prove that date. The reason you've never learned about this is because it's nothing new and nothing significant.

Scheherazade said:

In mss. studies, a colophon is just a note by a scribe. It doesn't tell us who wrote the text, only who copied it, and that late scribes gave a work an early date doesn't prove that date. The reason you've never learned about this is because it's nothing new and nothing significant.

Click to expand...

OK, so when was this noted first and by who?
I dont need critisizm my friend.
I want this information, and if you have it, give it so we can all learn.
I think something as a colophon at the end of a gospel, is not as you say, something insignificant.
I think it is verry significant indeed.
Something like that changes every attack the Christians had to endure in Textual critisizm for more than 150 years.

If the Atheist uses the argument that the Gospels was only written 200 years after Jesus, and we have a date on the manuscripts indicating such an accusation as untrue, but that it was written 8 years to 32 years after Christ, I think it is very significant.
So significant that the argument on the source Q falls flat on its face.
if I knew this 20 years ago, I could have proven many Muslims and atheists incorrect on this point also.

However, I learned that this information was only discovered in 2008.
if you have any other sources about the colophon's of the NT, please provide it to this uninformed and uneducated Bible believer.
Greetings.

SA Huguenot said:

If the Atheist uses the argument that the Gospels was only written 200 years after Jesus, and we have a date on the manuscripts indicating such an accusation as untrue

Click to expand...

Except it doesn't indicate that. It just indicates that the scribe who copied that manuscript dated the work to that period. The original autograph manuscripts written by the apostles have never been found and probably never will.

SA Huguenot said:

Incredible information.

Over the past 30 years or so, I studied religions, and was always, even last week, confronted with textual Criticism proving the manuscripts of the NT as unreliable.

The so called “Facts” is that we do not have the original manuscripts, and what we have, only date from 300 years after Christ. Actually, we do have partial manuscripts that dates from 100 year upward after Christ’s ascension, but there is no way one can convince the Bible criticizer that these copies are the true re written replacements on the original Gospels by the hands of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Furthermore, there are constructed accusations against the Gospels where it is said that there was a “Q” source for the writings of Matthew and Luke, and that Mark was written first where Matthew and Luke actually critique Mark. Even if there isnot a single manuscript discovered to give credence to this claim.

The above "Textual critisizm" claim concludes that the Christians do not have any authenticated manuscripts, and that a lot of changing and assumptions were introduced into the Gospels by Christians to deify Jesus, making the NT questionable.

In this regard, the Christian religion is just as questionable as the scriptures they adhere too. Compare this with the Quran and the Gospels are not in a better situation such as an Allah who "Protected" his revelations,

Bible criticizers creates the imagery that the Christian New Testament is one huge concoction where its Authors are unknown, the writers of the Gospels are confused, and many changes was introduced into the Gospels resulting in so many variants, or “Versions” in the New Testament.

Sad to say, I have to agree on the current evidence, it is partially true!

Lets see what I learned.
Today we have only 2 different New Testaments. (We have numerous NT translations, versions and many more personalised Bibles each carrying their own copurights as if God's Word can be copyrighted by some translator of the NT.

One set of Manuscripts is known through the King James version, the Texus Receptus which is named the Byzantium family (F35), the other is known as the New International translation and al the other “New” translations we see today belonging to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts known as the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. (There are actually 4 families of NT manuscripts, but we will stay with the Byzantium and Alexandrean families, for the others are very small or even represented by the 2 bigger ones.)

This weekend I bought myself a KJVER sword bible, and I found an article that stunned me to my soul!

“In 2008, Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering (Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary in Greek Exegesis, Ph.D. University of Toronto in Linguistics) discovered colophons in numerous ancient manuscripts that contained the Gospels.”

Here is the article link:

http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...ptic_Problem_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_ThD_PhD.pdf

Guess what is a Colophon?

It is the Author’s name, and the date when he “published” his book. This is found at the end of the Book, and not as we have it today at the beginning. Sort of the signature of the author!

And, just take a moment to comprehend what they found!

John was published 32 Years after the ascension. = Making this book published and signed off in 62AD

Luke 15 Years after the ascension =45AD

Mark 10 Years = 40AD and

Matthew 8 years = 38 AD.

Guys, this is something incredible if true. The Apostles SIGNED THEIR WORK OFF AND WROTE A DATE ON THE YEAR OF PUBLICATION!
Then I realised something I suspected throughout all my studies.

These Colophon’s were all found in the Texus Receptus manuscripts (Byzantium), which is the ones we know as the King James Version!

Now, why I never learned about the above is a worrying factor. Does our Christian apologists know about this?

Anyway, I now have evidence that the Authors of the Gospels are the ones it is named as such.

And the dates of the NT was between 8 years to 32 Years after Jesus ascended into heaven.

And that the King James version is the true Word of God.

And lastly, the Authors of the Gospels signed their work off in person.

All the other manuscripts with all those terrible errors are mere secondary copies of what the Christians today have in their hands.
I forwarded this post to the Dalas seminar through a close friend to RD Wallace, who collects digital photos of all the Greek manuscripts to confirm what I learned is not just some bit of fake news. If there is anyone here that can elaborate, please do so.
Haleluja!

Click to expand...

I am completely sure, that the Gospels are both early and 'direct'. Comparison and inference are totally evidential, as far as I'm concerned.

Some tricky stuff, however I only need a few examples to assure me of that.


I tend to use Matthew and Mark, and there is interesting material in John of course.

Good evening.

The 4 gospels was signed and dated. All before 62 AD

Jesus did not:

1. write them, any of them
2. or dictate them, any of them
3. Or authorize any of the gospel writers to write them on his behalf, any of them
4. he did not sign it, any of them
5. or authenticate it,any of them.

Nobody knows who wrote them, these were anonymous documents.

So, no, the Gospels have nothing to do with Jesus and his teachings.
Right, please?

Regards

paarsurrey said:

The 4 gospels was signed and dated. All before 62 AD

Jesus did not:

1. write them, any of them
2. or dictate them, any of them
3. Or authorize any of the gospel writers to write them on his behalf, any of them
4. he did not sign it, any of them
5. or authenticate it,any of them.

Nobody knows who wrote them, these were anonymous documents.

So, no, the Gospels have nothing to do with Jesus and his teachings.
Right, please?

Regards

Click to expand...

Flippettttt
Who said anything about jesus writing the gospels.
The only thing jesus wrote was on sand when the priests accused a women of adultery.
And he wiped it out,

SA Huguenot said:

Incredible information.

Over the past 30 years or so, I studied religions, and was always, even last week, confronted with textual Criticism proving the manuscripts of the NT as unreliable.

The so called “Facts” is that we do not have the original manuscripts, and what we have, only date from 300 years after Christ. Actually, we do have partial manuscripts that dates from 100 year upward after Christ’s ascension, but there is no way one can convince the Bible criticizer that these copies are the true re written replacements on the original Gospels by the hands of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Furthermore, there are constructed accusations against the Gospels where it is said that there was a “Q” source for the writings of Matthew and Luke, and that Mark was written first where Matthew and Luke actually critique Mark. Even if there isnot a single manuscript discovered to give credence to this claim.

The above "Textual critisizm" claim concludes that the Christians do not have any authenticated manuscripts, and that a lot of changing and assumptions were introduced into the Gospels by Christians to deify Jesus, making the NT questionable.

In this regard, the Christian religion is just as questionable as the scriptures they adhere too. Compare this with the Quran and the Gospels are not in a better situation such as an Allah who "Protected" his revelations,

Bible criticizers creates the imagery that the Christian New Testament is one huge concoction where its Authors are unknown, the writers of the Gospels are confused, and many changes was introduced into the Gospels resulting in so many variants, or “Versions” in the New Testament.

Sad to say, I have to agree on the current evidence, it is partially true!

Lets see what I learned.
Today we have only 2 different New Testaments. (We have numerous NT translations, versions and many more personalised Bibles each carrying their own copurights as if God's Word can be copyrighted by some translator of the NT.

One set of Manuscripts is known through the King James version, the Texus Receptus which is named the Byzantium family (F35), the other is known as the New International translation and al the other “New” translations we see today belonging to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts known as the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. (There are actually 4 families of NT manuscripts, but we will stay with the Byzantium and Alexandrean families, for the others are very small or even represented by the 2 bigger ones.)

This weekend I bought myself a KJVER sword bible, and I found an article that stunned me to my soul!

“In 2008, Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering (Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary in Greek Exegesis, Ph.D. University of Toronto in Linguistics) discovered colophons in numerous ancient manuscripts that contained the Gospels.”

Here is the article link:

http://www.standardbearers.net/uplo...ptic_Problem_Dr_Floyd_Nolen_Jones_ThD_PhD.pdf

Guess what is a Colophon?

It is the Author’s name, and the date when he “published” his book. This is found at the end of the Book, and not as we have it today at the beginning. Sort of the signature of the author!

And, just take a moment to comprehend what they found!

John was published 32 Years after the ascension. = Making this book published and signed off in 62AD

Luke 15 Years after the ascension =45AD

Mark 10 Years = 40AD and

Matthew 8 years = 38 AD.

Guys, this is something incredible if true. The Apostles SIGNED THEIR WORK OFF AND WROTE A DATE ON THE YEAR OF PUBLICATION!
Then I realised something I suspected throughout all my studies.

These Colophon’s were all found in the Texus Receptus manuscripts ( Byzantium), which is the ones we know as the King James Version!

Now, why I never learned about the above is a worrying factor. Does our Christian apologists know about this?

Anyway, I now have evidence that the Authors of the Gospels are the ones it is named as such.

And the dates of the NT was between 8 years to 32 Years after Jesus ascended into heaven.

And that the King James version is the true Word of God.

And lastly, the Authors of the Gospels signed their work off in person.

All the other manuscripts with all those terrible errors are mere secondary copies of what the Christians today have in their hands.
I forwarded this post to the Dalas seminar through a close friend to RD Wallace, who collects digital photos of all the Greek manuscripts to confirm what I learned is not just some bit of fake news. If there is anyone here that can elaborate, please do so.
Haleluja!

Click to expand...

It doesn't help a whole lot if the manuscript itself isn't that old. Anybody can add in a colophon on a whim. Givin its King James, any reasonable skeptic would consider the very real possibility it is just something that was put in to make it look like something it actually wasn't from antiquity.

It's going to take a far older artifact then that of the Byzantium era to establish that it wasn't zealously just put in there by some medieval scribe.

Nowhere Man said:

It doesn't help a whole lot if the manuscript itself isn't that old. Anybody can add in a colophon on a whim. Givin its King James, any reasonable skeptic would consider the very real possibility it is just something that was put in to make it look like something it actually wasn't from antiquity.

It's going to take a far older artifact then that of the Byzantium era to establish that it wasn't zealously just put in there by some medieval scribe.

Click to expand...

If something is added, you have to ask what. I'm sure of things that weren't added, because the established church didn't even understand some of the material, so forth.

In other words they didn't write something they didn't even know.

Like I said, I use the book of Matthew , book of Mark, and book of John.

[Back to added verses, it would only be verses that one couldn't determine weren't written later, with good certainty.

We also need to consider that these are different authors. John adds descriptive stuff, Matthew not so much, etc.

Desert Snake said:

If something is added, you have to ask what. I'm sure of things that weren't added, because the established church didn't even understand some of the material, so forth.

In other words they didn't write something they didn't even know.

Like I said, I use the book of Matthew , book of Mark, and book of John.

[Back to added verses, it would only be verses that one couldn't determine weren't written later, with good certainty.

Click to expand...

It's a fact literary drift occurs when comparing older vs. newer narratives. You can easily tell what they have added in over the course of the years by laying all the pieces of a puzzle down and taking a good look at it.

It's probably why this never made it to the peer-review process. At least from an archaeological standpoint it's really not all that intriguing and I suspect our dear Professor knew that and made no attempt to submit this for peer-review.

Nowhere Man said:

It doesn't help a whole lot if the manuscript itself isn't that old. Anybody can add in a colophon on a whim. Givin its King James, any reasonable skeptic would consider the very real possibility it is just something that was put in to make it look like something it actually wasn't from antiquity.

It's going to take a far older artifact then that of the Byzantium era to establish that it wasn't zealously just put in there by some medieval scribe.

Click to expand...

Well let me put it in this context.
I collect Bibles, and have about 250 dating back to 1786 on to recent times.
If I were to buy a KJV with a date 1611, and it was printed in 1953, I will know it is a KJV 1611 edition printed in 1953.
Nothing more and nothing less is expected.
If there are manuscripts with a date of 38 AD, 40 AD, 45 AD and 62 AD, and the paper and Ink dates from 225 AD, I will know I have a 38AD and...copy written in 225 AD.
Why on earth would any scribe write a manuscript in 225 AD, and willfully enter a date of 38AD?
You obviously are totally unaware that the Christians in the first 3 centuries were highly persecuted, and their writings were confiscated and burned with them if found.
This is where you want to force ignorance onto people who lived with a conscience that they will answer to God for their actions, claimimg they will forge some date on manuscripts.
Even if we take the Gnostic movement, who attempted to force the belief against a divine nature of Christ, not even they will have the need to commit such a forgery, but will have to abide to the following.
1. The Christians were watching their every move. If they were to commit such a fraud, they will record such an act, and we have many such incidences where the Church Fathers did call the gnostics out on their claims.
2. If the Christians were to commit such fraud, the gnostics would have had a field day too.
3. The Christians of the first 3 centuries were very strict on the copies they made, and even today one can see that the manuscripts up untill 400 AD are very close. if there is an accusation that not one manuscript is the same as the next, it is from a perspective of Textual Critisism where Christians calls it as such. The reason, well even if some scribe used numbers in the place of writing out say, 3 loaves and 5 fishes, in stead of THREE and FIVE, it is considered as a change.
4. No other book on earth is scrutinised as is the NT Gospels' manuscripts. And all that Christian scholars are doing is to establish why there is a difference between the Alexandrian, and Byzantium with some verses, or parts of verses removed from the Alexandrian?
5. It is a fact that the Aleph manuscripts(Sinaiticus) and B (vaticanus) removed the last verses of Mark 16. But the space where it should have been written on in the manuscript, remained empty. Now such an occurance does not exist anywhere in the Sinaiticus, only where these verses were removed.

What does this mean?

The variances of the NT manuscripts is the sole propperty of the Christian, no one else.
It is all evidence that the NT Scriptures are very reliable, and can be trusted upon.
it is not the evidence to the Bible critisizer that they somehow have this "Evidence" proving the Manuscripts are "Corrupted" and should be discarded.

On the contrary, the word "Corrupted" in Biblical textual critisizm, does not imply that the NT are a corrupt book, but that there are written differences in manuscripts, that AGREES TO EACH OTHER IN FULL!
I laughed one day in a debate with a muslim where he quoted a book by a Christian scholar "proving that the NT was corrupt".
The poor guy had no clue to what he was saying.

I turned a few pages further and showed him the following, if I remember correctly it looked like this.
1 Million Dollars.
One Million Dolars.
$ 1 000 000
$ 1 Million.
ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
one million dollars
onemilliondollars.
Here we have the very same thought, but we have a corruption in the writing where we now have no less than 16 "Corruptions".
I showed him that there was some 200 000 coppies of this book printed in the first edition, which means there is now 3.2 million "corruptions of this publication.
he realised only then what Textual critisizm ment by "Corruptions.
The Quran has 26 editions, with no less than 1200 wariants "Corruptions" in between each version.
This means that in the 26 known versions we have 32 200 corruptions, and taken that there are about 50 manuscripts we know of, the Quran then contain "1.5 million Corruptions".
It does not mean this is evidence of a book that was corrupted during time, even though I would use such an argument ONLY WHEN I AM IGNORANT OF THE FACTS.
Now, this is what Christian scholars on Textual critisizm practice to find out with their scientific analysis, which was the oldest, later, and true use.
It gives them a clear indication of Chronological contents changes, and helps to identify other manuscripts, on its original sources.

Therefore, if we have colophon's in some manuscripts, and the source originates from the Bysantium school, it is in my opinion a very old origin, and very likely the ones written by the apostles, that was coppied as the original aged and needed replacement.
The above comes from books I read on the subject, and the authors of these books are highly regarded as the aothorities on the subjects of Textual critisizm, and not always those of Christians.
Norman Geisler is one from the Christian side, and Ehrman from the Non Christian side, if I can call it as such.

Therefore, If the Bysantium F35 Manuscripts has a date written called colophon's, I have an axe against the branch of anyone claiming the NT was written long after the Apostles died!

Greetings.

Nowhere Man said:

It's a fact literary drift occurs when comparing older vs. newer narratives. You can easily tell what they have added in over the course of the years by laying all the pieces of a puzzle down and taking a good look at it.

It's probably why this never made it to the peer-review process. At least from an archaeological standpoint it's really not all that intriguing and I suspect our dear Professor knew that and made no attempt to submit this for peer-review.

Click to expand...

Sure, like contextually, the KJV is different from the greek language text. There are differences.
Now, of course Bibles are usually written in a religious context, so that can be different from just word to word translation, they are trying to make it readable.

Desert Snake said:

If something is added, you have to ask what. I'm sure of things that weren't added, because the established church didn't even understand some of the material, so forth.

In other words they didn't write something they didn't even know.

Like I said, I use the book of Matthew , book of Mark, and book of John.

[Back to added verses, it would only be verses that one couldn't determine weren't written later, with good certainty.

Click to expand...

Actually the verses was not added, but the Aleph and B removed the verses!
Evidence for that is that in Aleph the space where the verses should have been, was just left open.
In the Vaticanus, the letters of the previous verses were streached out to make up longer sentences to fill this gap.
Where the normal columns throughout the whole manuscript was almost 15 letters per row, in the chapter where the verses were removed, it went down between 10, the lowest and 12 the highest. Then suddenly were spaced normal to 15 again.
Nothing was added.
I am of opinion that the scribe had a damaged coppy, through aeging, or bersecution, and did not know what to do when he came there.

Desert Snake said:

We also need to consider that these are different authors. John adds descriptive stuff, Matthew not so much, etc.

Click to expand...

I disagree, They did not add anything to what they wrote, and never was there any so called Q to coppy the Gospels from.
This is a theory made up by Gesenius than in 200 years produced not a single "Q" in archaeology.
So why continue with something not proven, and discard evidence that is proven.
Such as the date and signoff of the Apostles on their writings?

I hope you now see clearly why I will rather believe the factual and touchable evidence that is written on very old manuscripts, and reject a theory where no evidence exists.

I can never believe in fairies, if I did not see one.

Nowhere Man said:

It's a fact literary drift occurs when comparing older vs. newer narratives. You can easily tell what they have added in over the course of the years by laying all the pieces of a puzzle down and taking a good look at it.

It's probably why this never made it to the peer-review process. At least from an archaeological standpoint it's really not all that intriguing and I suspect our dear Professor knew that and made no attempt to submit this for peer-review.

Click to expand...

I see Floyd Nolan Jones also supports the discovery of the Colophon's.
Well, now we have 2 phd's

I am still waiting for a reply from other sources.

But just tell me.
I am curious.
What do you expect of a peer review?
Who should conduct this peer review?