[Robert A Cook PE]

Fraud?

Ok - So the box itself is considered real - right time, right place, right construction. (By the quoted skeptical "experts".

Fine.

The (first) inscription is aknowledged to be "real" ... by these same experts.

(They seem to have doubts that something ca't be real if it can't be tracked (by hand-to-hand receipts maybe?) through 2000 years, but what the heck...)

And so they base their claim that it is fake because of the subtle differences between first and second inscriptions.

Did these "experts ever figure out that about year 150 Ad - When a person WANTED TO PROVE THIS WAS THE REAL BOX - added the second inscription?

Don't you take a photograph and write the child's NAME and Date on the back? To remember the TIME and the event - even though the date you inscribed the photograph WASN'T the date you took the photo?

Don't you take an old photograph album and write new descriptions on the new pages? What do you use: "Aunt Jane" or "My sister Jaba?" Isn't "Aunt Jane" more accurate now (30 years later) to your children than your baby-talk nickname that you used when you were four?

So the Teaching changed from AD 45 to AD 150.

Isn't that more reflective of truth than scholar's secular prejudices and a common hatred of Biblical phrases by most academic experts?

[VRWC_minion]

I agree that logically different handwriting would not necessarily indicate fraud one way or the other. In fact, using the "its too good to be true" test one might say that the fact their is a difference indicates lack of fraud because a good fraud would have found a box with no inscription and started with one fresh clean writing.