A: Like in any endeavor there are ups and downs. But overall we had a lot of ups. We have not been running short in new papers presenting fresh, documented ideas - in fact I was very surprised how foundational many of our papers turned out to be, not just rehashes of what others said before. You know, at first we didn't know where all of this would lead to. We started out quite small but deep down we had this `faith', knowledge or intuition that the better historical matrix would be on our side.

Q: Isn't it true that some preachers, Bible researchers claim that the spade of archaeology verifies that the Bible is true?

Yes. I also have heard that and wished it was true. Unfortunately the issues are not being explained as they should. Those who make those claims do not seem to be well read on the topic. Basically, the difference is this. If the overall chronology of the Bible matches that of history (what archaeologists believe) we have no great problems, however, as soon as we go further back in time this changes. The time of Jesus is not much contested, the era of Abraham, the Exodus, David and Solomon are under fire. They are being written out of the history books. - Therefore, we should not make blanket statements that archaeology is proving the Bible. If a student takes that assertion to school and then finds the problems at some point his faith in the veracity of the Bible may fall flat even worse than before. - What should we do about that? - Well, that is why we have CIAS. Here you find answers and methods addressed to contest the doubters out there. Only by realizing that accepted chronology is faulty can one come up with true answers.

Q: Is your site now more controversial than before?

A: I wouldn't say, controversial, for we gather in what a wide variety of reputable scholars have written - if its detrimental to the revised scenario we say so, if it helps we say so - in that sense we are not a website espousing one view point, like Velikovsky's, we started out with him and in many ways CIAS uses his insights. In some areas where Velikovsky has been criticized for not providing adequate documentation we try to make up for it. But even though Velikovsky has been our guiding `light' in other areas we have since grown our own wings.

Q: What do the criticis say to your presentations?

A: Just recently we released a dialogue explaining the difference in opinions of the El Amarna Period. That is actually a significant little contribution and ought to get conventionally oriented visitors' attention. Its currently posted at this site and at this site. This is just a beginning. But it is a significant one in as much as to - once we have solidly nailed or anchored the EA Period in the 9th century the repercussions go backwards and forwards on the time scale and a reshuffling of the whole history of practically the whole world must follow. I say whole world because there are ties, even if ever so slight. So is it today, November 2, 2011, that we can announce to have put together the best identification of King Tut ever. He was a real person and at that his alter-ego is a known Bible character. You just got to study it out.

Q: So, what do critics say beyond what is presented on the EA Period?

A: Well, I suppose some huff and puff, hmmm and wiggle their toes - some get that unwell feeling that nothing seems to be what it used to be anymore - where are the fixed points of references? Well, we didn't cause this cascading rethinking of ancient history, they asked for it when they couldn't fit things. We engage in doing our best to help clarify the new trends.

Q: What is your philosophy for the future?

A: I think we must come to a place where we realize that all of man's wisdom, in every field of human knowledge, are but tattered rags and crutches of reality. It is so particularly in history. Once we realize that, we may come to a place and regard the Causer of everything, and consider and accept His wisdom above ours.

Q: Well said.

A: In addition, certain things are becoming known to us only now, that is how certain powers or organizations have changed the truth of Bible history and then used the study of that falsified history to draw away clergy from remaining faithful to the Word of God. These were tactics used by Jesuits in particular in England where they had difficulties to win the Protestant clergy to their side. Thus they began to interest them in the study of ancient history and similar, ancillary studies, designed to draw them away from the plain reading of the Word of God, and over a period of 50 years they succeeded to change the opinion of the clergy about the papacy where other methods had failed. Now, ancient Bible history can be devastating to some if they have difficulty seeing that it is set up tied to scholastic arguments based on fallible human interpretations which led historians to relegate the Biblical accounts into mythology or plain unreliability. They should have been more faithful to written history instead of pottery and metal driven age and layer assignments which confounded what the only dependable written record of the ancient world witnessed to.

Q: What is your chance of being right or wrong?

A: Only time can tell, but you can tell today by taking a look today.

Well, thanks for your time. Hope we'll meet soon again to carry this a little further.

Sounds good to me.

Which readings are the most important? We feature a variety of subjects but when it is all said and done, I think our spiritual readings in English and German may be the most important to consider for there are changes underfoot these days which Scripture has foretold long ago and we do well to know about it, for in the end the thing that matters is, who do we worship. They include the following categories: (1) Biblical Explanations for what the besetting things in this world are, (2) Biblical Explanations of the Long Range Scriptural Predictions and Fulfillments, (3) Salvation Is Possible.