The above article is simply one long ad-hominem, basically, "Waaaaa! He hasn't gone through our club's initiation rituals!"
The man was a fire department investigator. He's spent a lifetime sifting through debris to figure out what happened, and if criminal charges should be filed, or building and fire codes should be changed, based upon his findings.
In contrast, MUCH of the archeaology community engages in fanciful guesswork, and then decries anyone with different hypothesis.
The comment about how he said he "cracked the code" and then saying the scroll is written in Hebrew is missing the point entirely, and most likely deliberately, due to personal animosity. What Barfield is saying is that the copper scroll is written in an obfuscated way, using indirect references, as a puzzle so to speak, such that the scroll was meant more as a memory aid for those who were already familiar with the general locations of the cached treaure. This way, the leaders could be assured if the scroll were captured, the locations of the caches wouldn't be immediately apparent, giving the leaders time to recapture the scroll OR to dig up and move the caches before those who took the scroll would have enough time to locate the places described in the scroll.
I'm an engineer. We don't judge by credentials, we judge by results. I suggest that the archeology community start to do the same.
The above article is simply one long ad-hominem, basically, "Waaaaa! He hasn't gone through our club's initiation rituals!"
The man was a fire department investigator. He's spent a lifetime sifting through debris to figure out what happened, and if criminal charges should be filed, or building and fire codes should be changed, based upon his findings.
In contrast, MUCH of the archeaology community engages in fanciful guesswork, and then decries anyone with different hypothesis.
The comment about how he said he "cracked the code" and then saying the scroll is written in Hebrew is missing the point entirely, and most likely deliberately, due to personal animosity. What Barfield is saying is that the copper scroll is written in an obfuscated way, using indirect references, as a puzzle so to speak, such that the scroll was meant more as a memory aid for those who were already familiar with the general locations of the cached treaure. This way, the leaders could be assured if the scroll were captured, the locations of the caches wouldn't be immediately apparent, giving the leaders time to recapture the scroll OR to dig up and move the caches before those who took the scroll would have enough time to locate the places described in the scroll.
I'm an engineer. We don't judge by credentials, we judge by results. I suggest that the archeology community start to do the same.