"The Lost Tomb of Jesus" Reviewed

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States.

It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

The Today Show's Claim That the Tomb Proves Jesus Had a Son

It could be the greatest archaeological find ever. Since the 1970s, hundreds of tombs and thousands of ancient bone boxes have been uncovered in the Holy Land. But now one tomb unearthed in Talpiot in 1980 is being regarded differently because it once held a box with this inscription, Jesus, son of Joseph.

While the Bible tells the story of Jesus and his resurrection, this box could show physical evidence that he existed, was buried, and that he had a son, Judah. Those are the claims in a new book from Emmy-winning investigative journalist Simka Jakubovic and a documentary from Academy Award-winning director James Cameron.

Witness the biggest cover-up in human history.

It was the central controversial claim of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife.

But Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and started a royal bloodline that continues today. Brown's story was fiction, but now a new documentary and book announce a startling real-life discovery. It's unbelievable.

This is it. It's the real thing. Journalist Simka Jakubovic says this tomb, discovered underneath what is now an apartment complex near Jerusalem, may be the final resting place of Jesus Christ. And this limestone box, called an ossuary, could have held his actual bones.

This ossuary may have held Maria's or the Virgin Mary's. This one is labeled Mary Omni, which Christian scripture says was Mary Magdalene's real name.

And let's stop right there. Well, if you listened, if you read the blog, you had a heads up. We saw this coming. Didn't have much of a warning. In fact, I would like to thank the fellow who came into the chat channel on Saturday morning and dropped a URL.

It was about the only URL in the subject at the time. But I saw very quickly the centrality of the argument that was being made and the sad fact that a large portion of the Christian community, including the Christian apologetics community, would not be in an overly good position to respond to this kind of cluster of arguments being put forth in the lost tomb of Jesus.

It should be the empty tomb of Jesus. But anyway, be that as it may, we tried to give you a heads up, tried to give you some warning as to what was coming. And what you were just listening to was the Today Show from yesterday morning.

We will be working through that. It is hard to get very far through these things without running into such outrageously false claims that you just have to stop and say, wait, wait, wait. And as soon as you say it's outrageously false, the other side says, but you haven't seen the movie yet.

Yeah, but you're making the claim. So when you say, for example, the Christian scriptures tell us that Mary Omni is Mary Magdalene. No, they do not. This, to me, is the central argument of this entire film, is that Mary Omni, the name on one of the ossuaries in the 1980 tomb that was uncovered in the construction of the apartment complex, that Mary Omni, and I'm not even getting into the questions that exist and questions do exist about the validity of the inscriptions.

There are questions. There are arguments on both sides that's still being worked out. There is a trial going on in Israel as we speak. Well, probably not as we speak because it would be too late there.

But there was while we were sleeping on this very issue in regards to the possibility of tampering that has been done with the James ossuary, which this film claims is the 10th ossuary that was found.

There were 10 ossuaries found. There are only nine right now. They're claiming that's the 10th one. Well, if that one's been tampered with and all bets are off and all the rest of it, but not even getting into all that stuff right now.

Mary Omni is the name that they focus upon and repeatedly say, Christian scholars say, here we just heard Meredith Vieira say that the Christian scriptures say that this is Mary Magdalene. No, they don't.

That is the and so far I've not heard anyone challenging this. I've not heard anybody saying, oh, no, that's not true. And we're going to listen to Larry King thing from last night. We may not get to all of it today, but there was a Larry King program last night, which is Larry King is is is the if you want to make sure that nothing more than sound bites ever get said and no one can ever have enough time to develop any intelligent thought.

Listen, Larry King. Larry King is one of the most frustrating programs to ever listen to. If you actually are concerned about what's being said, the man is the worst interviewer that God ever put on this planet.

And he is a scourge upon any serious subject. It is just just unbelievable to try to listen to that man. But as it may, we're going to listen to some segments that. But I want you to see how absolutely central this is to this current argument.

In case you can't tell, I've been on top of this thing and it's been the main thing I've been thinking about for days now. And I'll be letting you know on sort of announcing something a little bit later on the program.

So don't tune away. But listen to the very beginning. Well, it's not the very beginning. I missed the very beginning of the Larry King show last night in the interview because I was trying to find a way to record it.

And I eventually gave up and just used an old fashioned way of an MP3 recorder. I guess MP3 recorders aren't all that old fashioned, but I was trying to hook up cables and get video and all that stuff and I couldn't get it done.

But I did eventually get it started right at this point. Listen to Simcha Yakovlevich as he is talking about why it is that even though this was found almost 30 years ago, now all of a sudden they've been able to put the pieces together.

I'll play this section and then a section with Cameron on The Today Show yesterday morning. So you can see where this is coming from. Here's Simcha Yakovlevich.

She's from Magdala, the city Magdala. But her name is Mariamne. They didn't know that. So the archaeologists didn't know what the New Testament guys knew and the New Testament people didn't know what the archaeologists knew.

Once we connected those dots...

See, there's once we connected those dots. What's he talking about? He's talking about the assertion. You heard it in Meredith Vieira's words, which I'm sure she didn't write. Some writer at NBC saying that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene.

Here you have Simcha saying, see, New Testament scholars knew this. They knew that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene, but the archaeologists didn't. So when the archaeologists saw Mariamne in the ossuaries, that name on the ossuary, they didn't make a connection.

And we're the ones who have connected the dots. We've put this all together. And that's the same thing that Cameron said on The Today Show right toward the end of the interview. I think a lot of folks were maybe, you know, getting ready to move on or whatever that point.

But listen to what Cameron says at the very end of the interview from The Today Show yesterday morning.

They looked at, they said, oh, well, there's a second Mary here. You know, Mariamne is a diminutive of Miriam, which is Mary. But they didn't have the information from the Acts of Philip, which definitely identifies Mary Magdalene as Mariamne.

If they'd had that information, they might have looked at the whole name cluster very differently in 1980. Simcha found that information.

So Simcha Jakubowicz finds this information from the Acts of Philip. Now, what are the Acts of Philip? Is this something that all New Testament scholars go, oh, yes, this is relevant information, vital to New Testament, has the same kind of standing as the canonical Gospels?

The answer, of course, is no, it's not in any way, shape or form for that matter. That isn't the case. Well, what then are the what then is the Acts of Philip? Well, I've been trying to help out as much as possible by providing links on the Web site.

And by the way, I have I have put an entire topic area, a subject area of the tomb issues on the Web site. So all you've got to do is go down to the bottom of the blog, click on tomb issues, and you'll have everything that we have posted on this particular subject right there in front of you.

The the Acts of Philip are known in their earliest form from a will be conservative here, 14th century manuscript. Now, some theorize, please note this terminology, please. Some theorize this is a speculation.

It is purely theoretical. You don't have any way of backing it up. There is no evidence for it. It is theoretical that the book could be as early as sometime after the Council of Nicaea, 4th century. That is a pure speculation.

There is no evidence to back that up. OK, let's say around the year 500. So we have a document that doesn't that cannot even be pretended to be a meaningful historical document, as in containing first century data from the time of when these ossuaries use.

Because remember, we're going to now know more about ossuaries than we ever thought of before. The James Ossuary got us going on this. Now it's now it's front and center. You can't ignore this one because it's it's it's going to be all over the place.

And every person you talk to about the gospel who's heard it is going to be asking you about these things. That's why we have to pursue this, no matter how distasteful it might be or sometimes how silly it might be.

We have to pursue this because I think it is truly a major apologetic issue that faces us today. When someone attacks the centrality of the resurrection, folks. And this this I don't even think Simcha Yakovovich really understands yet because of what he said.

And Larry King will hear it later on if we ever get around doing all this stuff. But Simcha Yakovovich, we're not attacking the resurrection. I mean, unless you think it's physical. But most Christians don't think Jesus rose physically from the dead.

And you're just left going, OK, look, folks, if there were bones of Jesus in that ossuary, we are of all of all men most to be pitied. Is that not what the Apostle Paul said? That means there was no resurrection.

That means there's no Christianity. This is the heart and soul of it. OK, and, you know, maybe I'm giving way too much credit to think that he doesn't really know this, but it's possible that he doesn't.

Maybe the only Christians he's ever run into, sadly, are the John Shelby Spong type, which aren't Christians in the first place. But if Jesus Christ bones were in an ossuary, there is no Christian faith.

That's it. It's over with. Go home. Close the doors. And a lot of people do know that he may not realize that. But there's got to be other people involved with this, this whole thing that are well aware that that is, in fact, the situation.

So here's here's here's the assertion that you've got a source. We're going back to the to the to the acts of acts of Philip now. Here is the source that put everything together. If they had just known about this 14th century, 14th century, 14 centuries after this, you see the ossuary.

I'm sorry. I skipped a skip the line there. The ossuary thing. Ossuaries were only used for a brief period of time. They're primarily associated with the Hasmonean dynasty, about 10. You know, if we want to give it about 60 to 80 year swing there in the first century, beginning the first century through the destruction of Jerusalem.

That's when you have ossuaries being used. And they're wonderful archaeological things because, you know, they last for a long time. But other than that, they don't have a long history there that is relevant to us.

And, yes, they're very useful because, you know, you've got Joseph Caiaphas's ossuary. You've seen a lot of pictures of that now and and stuff like that. And so these are these are items that are of great archaeological significance.

There's no question about that. OK. But these have certain names on them. Again, not getting into the possibility of problems with the with the inscriptions, but these have certain names on them. How do we go about identifying this one particular name, Meriamni?

This this to me is the clearest illustration of where this documentary is going to go way off track because you heard it. You heard him say it. I'm going to I'm going to play it again so you can hear him say it.

They looked at that. They said, oh, well, there's a second Mary here. You know, Meriamni is a diminutive of Meriamni, which is Mary. And but they didn't have the information from the from the Acts of Philip, which definitely identifies Mary Magdalene as Meriamni.

If they'd had that information, maybe they might have looked at the whole name cluster very differently in 1980. Well, it has found that.

So archaeologists working in Israel are supposed to be making reference to a source that at the absolute outside, at the at the at the stretching it as far as you can is 400 years in the future from the time frame of the tomb itself.

Think about that for a second, folks. Go at least 400 years down and the only evidence you have actually comes from one thousand four hundred years later. Go down in history to the Acts of Philip and Cameron tells us that the Acts of Philip definitely tell us Mary Magdalene is Meriamni.

Guess what? Read them. They never say that. They don't even get close to that. It is a wild eyed speculation on the part of a small minority of scholars that the Meriamni, who is identified in the Acts of Philip as the sister of Philip, not of of Jesus wife or anything else.

She's never said to be Mary Magdalene. She is said to, interestingly enough, she's to die in the Jordan River. And when threatened, she turns into either a glass box or a pillar of smoke. That's this is the level of stuff that is being made.

The linchpin, the foundation for the argumentation of this film. And so the Acts of Philip from way up in the future that never make the connection of Meriamni and Mary Magdalene. Because they're speculated upon by someone that, you know what, this Meriamni seems like what some of the Gnostics said about Mary Magdalene.

So we'll make the connection. So way down the road, these connections get made. They are highly speculative. They have no factual foundation to them whatsoever. These get read back into the first century.

And now we have Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus and they've got a kid. And how do you make any of this kind of wild eyed nuttiness sound good? You throw in statistical analysis and then you throw in the issue of DNA.

And because everybody in Western culture knows as long as you've got statistics and DNA. That's it. I mean, it has to be true, doesn't it? Well, no, it doesn't have to be true because of two things. Let me just mention these real quick.

Then we'll go back to listening to these where I got a phone call and hold. And so we're going at it from every which direction. Two things real quick. The DNA issue is not even a questionable issue. What do I mean by that?

Well, people hear this and immediately Christians are going DNA. That's stupid. We don't have any sample against which to know that the DNA analysis was very simple. As far as I can tell. And remember, we're going to have much more to say about this once the book is released.

I'm going to be going looking for it today. It's supposed to be out today. I'm going to be checking local bookstores here real quick. See if I can track it down before I do the way of the master program at two o 'clock.

So I'm going to be I'm going to be hoofing it. But once we've got the book, once we've got the movie. Then we'll be able to go into much more detail than we can right now. All we can go on right now is all the stuff on the net and the things that these people themselves are saying their own claims.

We're playing their own words and responding to them. The argument is that they could only there was only enough human fragments left, which would be small bone fragments to do testing on the two main ossuaries that they're concerned about, which was Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary Omni.

And that's possibly understandable. What you need to understand is, is the only kind of testing that they could do is mitochondrial DNA. There is there would not be any nuclear DNA, full DNA strands that would be accessible in such a condition after 2000 years.

Just just wouldn't be there. So they can do mitochondrial DNA. We have a good friend in our chat channel for a member of my church who is a CSI and works with DNA and hence knows a good bit about DNA and has done some research for us.

And in fact, she contacted the very man who did the research. And ironically, he ended his email with something along the lines of don't let the media deceive you. There are only limited things that mitochondrial DNA can do, and it can only eliminate certain familial relationships, but not others.

And so what they're doing is they're saying they're emphasizing that there were certain familial relationships between whoever Yeshua Ben Joseph was and Mary Omni was that opens the possibility of their being married.

And then you throw in the Gnostic silliness from the 14th century and boom, you've got your story. But what you need to realize is there are certain other familial relationships that mitochondrial DNA analysis cannot preclude.

For example, Yeshua Ben Joseph could have been the father of Mary Omni. There is no way that mitochondrial DNA evidence would be able to demonstrate that in an ancient context would be able to demonstrate that that's not a possibility.

Couldn't be done now. Will they admit that on the film? I don't know. Will they admit that in the book? I don't know. I don't have it yet. It's just released today. I'm going to go looking for it. We will be able to go into much more detail on this in the future.

But he who did the actual DNA analysis is himself saying, look, there's only certain things that actually set the conclusions that have been put out there by Discovery Channel. The producers stuff are not mine.

I do not support them. That's not me talking. Here's all I said. So he's being very careful as, of course, he must be in comparison to the rather wild eyed argumentation that is that has appeared on especially the Discovery Channel.

Remember, the Discovery Channel is the same channel that has brought us the search for Bigfoot and things like that, too. And this seems to be very much along the same lines as far as as far as that goes.

Yeah, I've just been told the oh, the DNA chapter is only eight pages long. Tiquid in Channel here, who is one of the members of Team Apology and tells me it's twenty seven bucks. Yeehaw. Rich, I'm bringing the credit card with me.

We've got we've got that kind of room on it. So so we're going to we're going to go see if we can't track that that baby down. In fact, if we don't have any other phone callers calling, maybe you can give give somebody a call here locally, maybe up at Metro Center or something like that.

Track one down for me, have one held for me or something like that. I don't want to get up there and it's gone. So once you're done eating that wonderful looking, you know, eating in front of me right before lunch is really not not a kind thing to do, especially when you look like you're enjoying it.

I'm going to turn the webcam around so everybody can see you sitting there munching on your on your health food there. Should I tell them what it is? Your your Pop-Tart? Anyway. OK, here's a quote. Thank you.

Thank you, Tiquid. Jesus' mitochondrial DNA seemed typical of the Semitic tribes people who had inhabited the Jordan Valley in the time of Pilate and Herod. Well, there's some insight that we couldn't have possibly had any idea of.

There you go. There's there's there's some insight there. OK, anyway, here's here's to it. There's DNA argument. Personally, I think the DNA argument there is is there primarily to lend scientific credibility and allow the Discovery Channel to make the claims it's making.

Honestly, it's not giving you that much more information. Then the big one, the one that they pushed on Larry King, the one that they they pushed on The Today Show was the name cluster issue, the name cluster issue.

Let me let me give you a a story here. Now, obviously, we're going to want to do much more in-depth work on this and in over the next couple of weeks. But let me just give you a little story. Last night in our chat channel, another fellow who also is rather highly educated and rather brilliant person.

We have a lot of rather smart folks in our channel came into channel and just for the fun of it. I started surfing around the Web and found a document in which my name, my first name, my wife's first name spelled the way she spells it.

My daughter's first name and my son's first name all appeared on one document on a Web site. And it was an honor roll at a university in Hawaii. And so so he said, that's clear proof that we, of course, have lived in Hawaii, which actually we haven't.

But and then on a lark, he then pulled up the census nameless. Did you know you could do this? You can pull up census nameless. In fact, a lot of people are wondering, how do we know that Mary was the most popular name?

Well, there's a book right here. Those of you watching on the webcam, here is the book. It is called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Baucom. I'm writing the review of this book for CRI right now.

It just happens to be what I'm one of the things that I'm doing. And it's a brand new book by by Richard Baucom. And there is an entire chapter on the names that were used and where they're found, how they're found.

And on, for example, page 89, table seven, the 31 most popular female names among Palestinian Jews, 330 BCE to 200 CE. So for half a millennium on both ends of our time period, Mary Mariam is the number one.

Forty two ossuaries have been found with Mariam on it. Salome 41, Shalamzion 19, Martha 17, Joanna 7. This is the ossuaries. The total numbers is Mariam 70, Salome 58, Shalamzion 24, Martha 20, Joanna 12, Shifra 12, Bernice 8.

And then you start going down from there. And you have the same kind of of numbers, most popular male names, table six, page 85. Simon Simeon is number one. Joseph Joses is number two. Jesus Joshua is number six.

OK, and so this information is available to us. Well, they have census records as well. And you can pull census records up. Pull the census records up and got the the total appearance numbers for my name, my wife's name, my daughter's name and my son's name.

And then he put them together. And what is the probability of those four names appearing in one family in that context? And the number went to 10, the 14th power. But the problem is, folks, my family does exist.

My name is my name. My wife's name is my wife's name. And we chose those names and those names exist. And this kind of abusive statistics can be used to prove anything. They showed a portion. In fact, I bet you I could I could find it here in the in the Larry King wave, though, with all the background noise, it probably wouldn't come out really well.

But they showed a portion and they had Tabor. Tabor, for example, picked up this in the argument on Larry King. And he picked it up and saying, well, look, you know, if you had all these people in a football stadium and you asked the ones with the name Jesus stand up, this many would stand up.

And then if they had if it was a son of Joseph, this many and then you throw in Mary and you're trying to they're trying to create this illusion that this has to be the one the one tomb based upon the assumption that Mary Omni is Mary Magdalene and Maria has to be Mary, the Virgin Mary.

They're ignoring all the facts. These people were not Jerusalemites. They didn't live here. There is absolutely no logical reason. They keep saying this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Hello. Where's Nazareth?

Do you know it's not anywhere near Jerusalem, folks, that the family isn't going down there and after after the crucifixion, if they even accept that, it seems that they do. So are you seriously suggesting the Jewish authorities would be letting these people hang around and have hallowed ground to to to bury people in the whole thing?

Just the special pleading eventually just gets absolutely amazing. So the point is, take your own family. Take your parents' names and your name and your sister's names and your brother's names. It would help if you have four or five and look at the census records.

See how prevalent your guys' names are and then run the stats. And you'll discover you can't possibly exist. There is a million to one chance that you don't actually exist. That's the kind of argumentation that's being found here.

And it's just absolutely amazing to me that that that people are not pointing this out. And then when you throw in the acts of Philip silliness. Oh, by the way, can you tell that I've been spending a lot of time on this because I'm just running all over the place because there's so much stuff to put together here.

And really, you know what I what I mentioned is it is my intention. As soon as I get back. Well, if I can get this book today, I haven't seen anybody making phone calls yet. But if I can get to get this book today to track it down, it's my intention starting at the latest on Monday.

Once the film is out, I've had a chance to view the film. I've got the book to respond to it. Not on the blog, though. I will be putting stuff on the blog. It is my intention to write a book and to write it as quickly as we can do so on a practical level.

Focusing upon these things, providing the references that I can't really provide in this context overly quickly. And get this out as quickly as humanly possible. That means I'm going to have to put other stuff on hold for a while.

Not for a long while, because I want this out quickly since there is a need for a full orbed response so that people know. I mean, the timing is always the same, isn't it? Everybody keeps pointing out, coming up on Resurrection Sunday, coming up on Easter, always throw this stuff out there.

Yeah, this is a retread from 1996, but it's a retread with DNA and statistics analysis and James Cameron and so on and so forth. So it's a very pretty retread. And it's the kind of presentation that is very effective for postmodern Westerners who don't do a lot of critical thinking.

And Christians need to have a documented source they can have with them that provides the responses that they need to get the witnessing situation back on track. And in fact, if anything, get it back on track in a proper way, get it, use it as a means of witness.

Turn this thing around. Remember when we we talked about the passion? Turn around, use it positively. That's what John Piper did with his book. That's what I'm talking about here. Turn this, use the Da Vinci Code, turn it around, use it as a witnessing opportunity.

That's why we've dedicated I don't know how many blog entries, very full, lengthy blog entries to that. Here, we need to turn this around and use it as a means of witness, turn it around as a testimony to the gospel and to the resurrection.

So I came up with a working title. In fact, those of you who are calling in might tell me what you think about it. Working title I came up with as I was driving into the office this morning was and I'm doing this off the top of my head.

I put it in chat channel, but I'm not going to scroll back until I find it. The working title is From Toronto to Emmaus. The empty tomb and the journey from skepticism to truth based faith. The journey from Toronto to Emmaus.

Hopefully, you know why I put it that way. Simcha Jakubowicz is from Toronto and Emmaus, obviously, that encounter on the road that I would like to focus upon at some point in the book. And that's what I'm going to be doing for the next couple of weeks.

Putting this information together, giving you the information on ossuaries, on Mary Omni, the Acts of Philip, information like that. Gathering as much as I can and getting something out into people's hands.

I am certain that others will be putting out huge tomes, but huge tomes take a lot of time. And while really good theology takes a lot of time, this isn't really a really good attack upon Christianity.

It is really good only in the sense that it has it has pop. It has sizzle. It has the media behind it. It has DNA. Anybody who watches CSI is going, oh, this is cool. And I imagine once you see the film and see how how it can be spun that way, you're going to see.

We need something very quickly that allows us to respond on the same level and that is understandable. And that's that's what I intend to be launching into. I hope you'll be praying for us and supporting us as we do that, because that means I'm going to be putting other things on hold and so on and so forth.

So please be patient with us as we as we go for that that particular situation. So anyway, there's there's the big issues. The big issue is Mary Omni. The big issue is the name cluster stuff. Those are the two the two focal points of the argumentation.

Everything else is window dressing that you can address in various ways. But that's the linchpin in their own words. I mean, I'm I'm not the one who said I'm not the one who said what what Simcoe said right here.

But her name is Mary Omni. They didn't know that. So the archaeologists didn't know what the New Testament guys knew. And the New Testament people didn't know what the archaeologists knew. Once we connected those dots.

Yeah.

That's that's not me talking. That is them identifying the heart of what their argumentation is. And that's what we need to be focusing into as as well. So we'll be going back to the today program thing here.

But we do have a phone call I'd like to get to first. And so let's go ahead and talk with Kendall. Hi, Kendall.

Hello, James. How are you, sir? Doing well. Ten minutes before the show, I walked in my office with the book in my hand. Well, good. Like you, I just I want to get my hands on it. And I look forward to you writing something.

Well, actually, you know, I had it on order and then I realized, wait a minute, I don't. If it's out today and I thought it wasn't going to be out till tomorrow, I was already to be traveling. I guess I could pick it up when I get to Massachusetts.

But I think Rich is making some phone calls right now to see if I can get hold of it here locally. So there's this thing called the waiting area at the airport that you sit at for a long, long period of time.

And I would like to have that in my hand during that period of period of patience building.

So anyway, did you see the discovery Web site? You know, that could change history. Yes. And, you know, it's interesting. You mentioned I have that I just walked in and you mentioned that the chapter on DNA is only eight pages long on the back page.

Less 174 of that chapter. It's just interesting. You know, they don't have DNA samples of any of the other boxes.

So that so I'm right in what I had seen where I saw a claim. I've been chasing this thing for four days now, but I saw a claim that that's the only to those two boxes. Only those two ossuaries had sufficient material in them to allow for examination.

Sorry about that. That's convenient for them, isn't it?

And that does strike me as a little odd, to be honest with you with the the Judah son of Jesus.

They said, what's what's bad about this one? We tried to get some material, but it had been scoured out for cleaning preparation for a museum display. Interesting. And so, yeah, out of all the boxes. Now, they don't mention that they actually tried unless I, you know, I.

I didn't read in that chapter where they tried to get any other DNA. I don't know. Also, I'd like to know, when did they start this DNA research?

Well, they said it's been over the past three years and I don't they did take it to the to the best place that they could take it to up in Canada. To I think is Lakeland University, where they specialize in the analysis of ancient mitochondrial RNA and the extraction and amplification and analysis of that.

So we did verify that they really couldn't have taken it to a better place to do to do what they did. So how many pages is it? The whole book? Yeah. It is to 18, 18. Oh, that'll be a quick read. So. All right.

Well, Ken, I appreciate that. I hope I will be taking that with me to the airport tomorrow myself and pray for us as we launch into this. I'm going to try to do this, you know, 12 hours a day and get something out as quickly as possible.

It'll be accurate, not necessarily exhaustive, but useful to the people of God.

I'm definitely in support of that. And and financially, I'd like to stay on the line because, you know, there's got to be something written out, like you said, quickly. Yeah. And it's interesting. That's just you mentioned this was brought up in 96.

But this idea that they were going to be coming out with this now been pretty much kept secret.

You know, the first I heard of it was Saturday morning. That was the very first thing. So, yeah, they believe me, they learned their lesson. Look what happens at Da Vinci Code before the film came out.