Mainstream Archaeology Fakes - 218 LexiLine Journal

Archaeology - as well as sister disciplins such as Egyptology and
Assyriology (Near Eastern Studies) - are all disciplines very
competent at "digging up" evidence, which is actually their proper
job.

They are often equally incompetent in the accurate interpretation of
their findings, which is properly NOT always their job, training OR
expertise, even though THEY think it is. An Egyptologist with no
astronomy training but still interpreting ancient astronomical texts
from Egypt is about like a man with no knowledge of Chinese
translating Han texts into English.

But this situation is not likely to change much in the near future.

But who then is the proper "expert" for the interpretation of much
of ancient history? Frankly, much of this should be in the hands of
the men of the law.

After all, the oldest written historical sources (the Ebla Tablets,
The Code of Hammurabi (sic, Abraham), the Bible, etc.) are LAWS -
properly the realm of trained jurists such as myself.

The Bible, such as the 10 Commandments and the various other
Biblical pronouncements which fill the Bible - contain LAWS, rules
for living, making life better for humanity, etc. The same is true
for other similar religious books such as the Koran, which are also
collections of laws, telling men how they should live.

The interpretation of the meanings of these books should be the
realm of people trained in jurisprudence, i.e. experts in the
interpretation of laws, and no one else.

Much of the present world political chaos is a result of the fact
that various religious and academic incompetents are interpreting
ancient sources to fit THEIR world view and many fools in the
ignorant masses are following these erroneous teachings - teachings
made by people who have no business interpreting these ancient
sources or preaching what they actually mean.

This practice has proven to be a worldwide disaster, in every
century, also in the present one.

Just open your morning paper to see the results.

UPDATE November 9, 2003

I posted before about the James ossuary inscription forgery.
How do these things happen? How can an archaeological forgery go
this long unrecognized? Part of the answer is found below.

Dave Meadows and his Explorator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Explorator/
now has a link to
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chadwick_Indications.htm
under the title
"Jeffrey Chadwick, "Indications that the "Brother of Jesus"
Inscription is a Forgery":"

What disturbs me here greatly is that the REAL archaeology issue
- the methods by which peer review ignores "contrary opinion" -
is not mentioned in the above Explorator description of that news
item. But THAT is the NEWS at that website.

This is an integral part of this forgery scandal.
People saw early that the ossuary script was a forgery - but they
were blocked by peer review from publishing their opinions. Just
read below.

As stated at
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chadwick_Indications.htm
"Dr. Jeffrey R. Chadwick's essay, "Indications that the "Brother of
Jesus" Inscription is a Forgery," was an early scholarly analysis of
the so-called James ossuary inscription, written within a few months
of the Ossuary's announcement to the world. Dr. Chadwick first
submitted the essay for publication to Hershel Shanks' magazine,
Biblical Archaeology Review. Although the magazine turned down the
essay, Mr. Shanks argued against it in his book The Brother of
Jesus, which he co-wrote with Dr. Ben Witherington III. Dr.
Chadwick's essay has never been released to the public, so Bible and
Interpretation offers it to the world here for the first time."

I need not comment those events - they speak for themselves.

Of course, Chadwick was right, the ossuary script is a forgery, but
this is how "established" peer-review works. The truth is blocked
and - surprise, surprise - as in the case of Knorosow and the
decipherment of the Maya glyphs - the incorrect interpretations are
published by the mainstream opponents of the truth not only for a
profit, but in Knorosow's case, his opponent - wrong on nearly every
count - was even knighted. A story straight out of the macabre.

When material should be me made accessible to the mainstream for
their OWN interest - the standards of publication are different.

When Hershel Shank's OWN access to the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls
had been blocked some years previously, he moved heaven and earth to
get his access to the original texts and finally used a "secret"
copy of them. See http://www.nullens.org/jesus/chapter6/jch67.htm
Shanks then published a book giving his opinions on this topic as
well, all in the name of science of course.

Human Clothing Date of Origin - 217 LexiLine Journal

ot being particularly fashionable myself, I occasionally enjoy
glimpsing into the world of fashion at the FeedRoom
http://www.feedroom.com
which I highly recommend for top news stories in other fields as
well.

Speaking of fashion,
when did our "threads" first originate?
Since when do humans first wear clothes at all.

Recall, I claim that the word AFRIK,
as an old term for Africa,
comes from an Indo-European term
e.g. Latvian PLIK
meaning "nude, without clothes",
i.e. the description of Africa as the land of the people who wear no
clothes, as is still the case in parts of Africa today.

Scientists studying the genetics of lice - especially the type that
breeds in human clothing - have discovered that the genetic break
between these "clothes-adapted" lice and those lice which are at
home in human hair (they requiring no clothing) took place around
70,000 years ago. This genetic evidence also matches the human
genetic evidence which indicates that humans first came "out of
Africa" into cooler regions at about this same time period,
suggesting that clothing was a matter of adaptation to colder
temperatures due to human migration northward.

See:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030818/030818-7.html