Archaeologica.org

not really sure cuz I just got it but it looks promising.


Available here

http://www.amazon.com/Tower-London-Moat ... F8&s=books

Interesting finds including a fish trap from the 1300's with bones, lion skulls, heretofore unknown supports and so on.

I personally like historical archeology more than the old crap. It seems a lot more accessable, somehow. Books like this and whosiefaces "Medieval England: a Social History" and the "reading the Landscape" books sorta talk to you more than research about civilizations whose writing looks like chicken scratches.

I call 'em as I sees 'em.

There is a plethora of books out there...and a plethora of
digs. WHen I'm not so sleepy I'll recommend a couple of good reads.

THe oldest civilizations with the chicken=scratch writing are hard to fathom for me, although marduk has attempted to bring the sumerians into our daily lives. And once Minimalist posted the code of Hammurabi which was fascinating.

I keep trying to figure out how much like our ancestors we are today...

I like to look at and think about art and architecture, which is one reason I regret the wierd direction the board has taken lately....

Hey Stan, if you want to read some fascinating material about ancient architectural design, check-out article #2 at www.IceAgeCivilizations.com.
It explains how the ancients' ability to measure the earth is embodied in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza, and how that is the fore-runner of our modern mapping and timekeeping system.

self promotion is never a good thing...do you use sources, references, footnotes or bibliography at all in that work?

How did you get James Kennedy to sign off on it?


if you want a good book or books to read, here are 4:

The Flood by Dr. Rehwenkel
Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings by Dr. Charles Hapgood
Return to Sodom & Gomorrah by Dr. Charles Pellegrino
Unearthing Atlantis by Dr. Charles Pellegrino

Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings is a key component of my finding in article #2.

All things considered, I'd rather read about a bunch of grubby medieval brits digging in the mud than a bunch of jews scratching in the sand 2000 years ago. More .... uplifting.

Archaeologist, if you felt about a book, the way Kennedy describes he does about mine, then wouldn't you be more than willing to also endorse such a product?

isn't there a rule about shilling crap on this forum?

here is a quote from one of the articls written in that website:

The phrase used eleven times in Genesis, "these are the generations of ..........," means "these are the ancestors of .........," it does not mean "these are the offspring of ..........." (as is popularly imagined), therefore, because the Hebrew word for to write is to cut in (into clay cuneiform tablets), and because the ancient cuneiform tablets were traditionally signed off upon at the end of the tablets, the Genesis account is actually a compilation of eyewitness accounts written by Adam, Noah, and the others (see Chapter 21 of my book).

Please, Please tell me you have credible source material in yor book to back this up and explain why you disagree with all biblical scholars.

plus, if you want an answer from me concerning James Kennedy, send me a book for free and i will read it then i will answer you. from what i have seen in your posts and your website, the book isn't worth anything.


****before the mods ban this guy, please have him answer the questions with full references and credible sources and then explain his position with same****

The facts in the quote from article #13 at www.GenesisVeracity.com that you cited stand on their own merits, no references needed, it is what it is.

Genesis means origins, or ancestors of, that's the way it is, confirm it for yourself.

the Genesis account is actually a compilation of eyewitness accounts written by Adam, Noah, and the others (see Chapter 21 of my book).

Shit. I thought Arch was the King of the Lunatics....he's barely a prince compared to you!

Minimalist wrote:

the Genesis account is actually a compilation of eyewitness accounts written by Adam, Noah, and the others (see Chapter 21 of my book).

Shit. I thought Arch was the King of the Lunatics....he's barely a prince compared to you!

Something tells me he will not "appreciate" my discussion of how the P Creation myth is based on Ps 104 which is in turn based on Ahkenaten's Hymn to the Sun. . . .

--J.D.

Do they ever?

that you cited stand on their own merits

no it doesn't

no references needed

yes it does.

I thought Arch was the King of the Lunatics

no there are 4 on this board that are certifiable and i am not one of them.

Denial is the first sign of madness.

The problem is, arch you just keep refusing to respond to proper treatment:



--J. "Up the Voltage!!" D.