Chris Pinto challenged to debate with James White on Codex Sinaiticus Validity

Chris Pinto mentioned in passing on today's radio show [runs from about 18:22 to 20.00] that he is going to debate James White (who wrote The King James Controversy) in December, about the validity of Codex Sinaiticus.  Gotta pray that Pinto will be sharp and on target, and not easily derailed by any attempts to make him out to be KJV-only, although that may not even come up I suppose.  More likely he'll be characterized as a conspiracy thinker with the usual implication that it's all in his imagination and imposed on the facts.   That shouldn't be too hard to dispel, though,-- if White is an honest debater and I expect that of him -- because Chris has mustered his facts well on this subject .

But this is exciting news to me since Pinto has been convincing me for some time now that Sinaiticus was the work of paleographer Constantine Simonides and not an ancient manuscript at all, and I very much hope he will succeed in persuading James White and Daniel Wallace and many others. 

If it's the truth of course, but as I said, I believe it is.

On his site he has an article about a video of Daniel Wallace speaking on Tischendorf's find of Sinaiticus that James White had posted on his website as his argument against Pinto's claims, about which he comments: 

The video below was posted on James White's Alpha and Omega ministry website, as an alleged refutation of the claims of Constantine Simonides.  The headline for the article appears thus: "Evangelical Textual Scholar Debunks Chris Pinto's Conspiracy Claim that Codex Sinaiticus was a Forgery."  It is worth noting that the scholar in question (Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary) does not mention Chris Pinto, or the film Tares Among the Wheat.  Had Dr. Wallace actually seen the film, his comments would most likely have been orchestrated differently, and he might have even been convinced to change his mind.  

Dr. Wallace is obviously unfamiliar with certain particulars surrounding the Simonides affair, and we believe this is not entirely his fault, since this history has been largely buried for more than a century. The purpose of Tares is to show the untold history surrounding the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, and to draw attention to the fact that this single manuscript has been used to destroy confidence in the Bible as the inspired Word of God.  As such, whether or not this codex is genuine becomes very significant.

A few things: Dr. Wallace says that Tischendorf had "exposed" Simonides as a forger years earlier, which is untrue....

Furthermore, Dr. Wallace mentions Henry Bradshaw's testimony as if it were conclusive proof that Codex Sinaiticus was genuine.  Yet (as we document in Tares) Bradshaw's argument was not based on any scientific evidence or analysis, which he openly admitted.  His argument was that he didn't know why he believed it, but that his "senses" told him it was real.  That's it.  There was no deep scientific argument.  Just his senses.  This is further proof that he and the other men who confirmed Codex Sinaiticus as a genuine fourth century MS. were themselves of provably limited abilities, and they based their conclusions on analysis that was, at best, doubtful.

Does Isaiah 14:12 show that Lucifer is Satan?

Textual Critic Daniel Wallace has a blog entry about a popular You Tube video that purports to show from the Hebrew that Obama is the Antichrist. I watched the video but it doesn't really interest me much and Wallace shows that it manipulates facts to make its point (I'd noticed some time ago that "barak" means "lightning" in Hebrew which I thought was interesting anyway). Obama is certainly AN Antichrist, as I've noted here already, but we're waiting for THE Antichrist to be revealed, some time in the not so distant future I expect. Christians will recognize him then, when he is revealed.

2Th 2:3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

But in discussing this video Wallace comments on one vexed verse in the Bible versions controversy:

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Wallace says:

Is Isaiah really the source for the Christian view of Satan? It may contribute to our understanding, but even that is disputed. The one passage that may speak about Satan is indeed Isa 14. But part of the reason for this being so interpreted is due to the influence of the KJV. At v. 12 the King James says, “O Lucifer, son of the morning!” The word lucifer, however, is simply a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate at this point. It is not another name for Satan.

Is this a mistake or merely an overemphasis on the influence of the KJV? Origen, who lived nearly two centuries before the translation of the Latin Vulgate, thought it was another name for Satan, and he didn't have the Vulgate or the King James English Bible, but a Greek Bible -- the Septuagint. Origen reads the passage rather differently than Westcott and Hort did (who are of course responsible for the new readings), understanding it to say the same as Jerome had it say in the Vulgate about the identity of Satan with Lucifer, and yet Jerome translated from the Hebrew text while Origen had the Septuagint:

"Concerning another opposing power, we are taught the following by the prophet Isaiah: The prophet says, 'How is Lucifer, who used to arise in the morning, fallen from heaven!' ... Most evidently by these words a being is shown to have fallen from heaven -- he who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning. For if he originally had a nature of darkness (as some think), how is it said that Lucifer existed this way before? Or how could he arise in the morning -- if he had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Savior Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, 'Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning.' For at one time he was light." --Origen, c. 225, 4.259. (From David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, p. 410)

Wallace goes on:

The Hebrew word, helel means ‘morning star’ or ‘shining one.’ Most modern translations (the NKJV is the only exception I found of the translations I checked) do not translate helel as Lucifer; rather they have ‘shining one,’ ‘day star,’ ‘morning star,’ etc. (cf., e.g., NET, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NAB, NJB, HCSB). Of course, there are still excellent scholars who believe that Isa 14 is ultimately a reference to Satan, though in the historical context it was directed at the Babylonian king.

Even Origen thought it was a reference to Satan, and he couldn't have been influenced by the King James Bible.

Odd that so many of the modern Bible versions prefer to blur this identity that is recognized as far back as Origen. Is it an intentional blurring or just another of Westcott and Hort's stupid blunders? The result is the same in any case: the equation IS blurred in the Bibles that derive from their work.

There is still the disturbing fact that "morning star" is part of Lucifer's title or name, and emphasized in the modern Bible versions, although Jesus Christ claims this title to Himself:

Re 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

I may come back with some thoughts about this later.