Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wyatt's Ark of the Covenent
JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 307 (205610)
05-06-2005 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jar
05-06-2005 12:35 PM


Re: The AofC was covered
Jar, you conveniently choose to ignore all the details of Ron's 1984 and 1985 trips into Saudi Arabia.
In 1984 as he and his 2 sons were exiting the country they were caught at the border and locked up in a Saudi jail for 72 days and all his pictures and documentation were confiscated!
In 1985 when he was invited back and he and David Fasold went, again all of their pictures and documentation were confiscated!
It wasn't until 1992 that Ron got pictures and video of the sites from a couple who managed to sneak to the site and sneak the evidence out of the country.
You seem to have this warpped idea that it should be a "simple" thing for Ron to have run all over Saudi Arabia with unlimited access to every petroglyph in the country -- BUT HE COULDN'T DO IT!
Are you going to back down and start being REASONABLE, or am I going to get this never-ended tirade of hogwash from you?
Like I said before, why don't YOU try to go over there and do some archaeology work?
But I guess that you're too busy living in the comfort of your own personal ivory tower with nothing to do but type onto discussion forums and pretend you know it all? . . .
This message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-06-2005 01:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 12:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 05-06-2005 1:19 PM JimSDA has replied
 Message 168 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 2:46 PM JimSDA has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 167 of 307 (205616)
05-06-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 1:07 PM


The point of this discussion is that "the dog ate my homework" just doesn't cut it in science.
Maybe Wyatt really did do his homework and maybe the dog really did eat it. But until the homework is handed in - i.e until the evidence is presented - Wyatt isn't going to get credit for it.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 1:07 PM JimSDA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 3:38 PM ringo has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 168 of 307 (205628)
05-06-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 1:07 PM


Re: The AofC was covered
Ron has photos of the rock. He published them.
There is no need to even go to Saudi Arabia to verify the presence or dating of other such petroglyphs.
Does he, and do YOU, also publish those petroglyphs from that rock that refute your hypothesis.
Here is one from Yatib, Saudi Arabia, dating from about 2400BCE.
Did Ron and do YOU explain to your audiences that such glyphs date from 1000 years BEFORE the Biblical date of the Exodus?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 1:07 PM JimSDA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 3:31 PM jar has replied

JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 307 (205642)
05-06-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by jar
05-06-2005 2:46 PM


Re: The AofC was covered
When was that photo published?
Ron died in 1999 -- if the pic was published AFTER that date, then it is ludicrous to "blame" Ron for ignoring it.
Document who took that pic and when and where it was published.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 2:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 3:44 PM JimSDA has replied

JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 307 (205644)
05-06-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by ringo
05-06-2005 1:19 PM


Credit goes where credit's due.....
Ringo316, if Ron never went into Saudi Arabia in '84 and '85 (and risked his life in doing so), you folks would never even have any pictures to argue about!
Let's try to be reasonable and at least give Ron some credit for being brave enough to go there and be the first American Christian to try to figure out if those sites pertain to the Bible Exodus story -- you guys pretend to be searchers for Truth, SO HOW ABOUT YOU ALL ADMITTING THAT IT WAS A GOOD THING FOR RON TO GO OVER THERE?
While most of the other guys on this forum just sat on your duffs all safe at home . . .
Let's give Ron some credit, OK?
This message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-06-2005 03:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 05-06-2005 1:19 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 05-06-2005 3:51 PM JimSDA has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 171 of 307 (205647)
05-06-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 3:31 PM


Re: The AofC was covered
That has nothing to do with the issue.
The questions are:
Does he, and do YOU, also publish those petroglyphs from the rock Ron identified as part of an Altar that refute your hypothesis.
It has nothing to do with the picture I published. We are dealing with the rock Ron, and YOU are touting.
Question #2:
Did Ron and do YOU explain to your audiences that such glyphs date from 1000 years BEFORE the Biblical date of the Exodus?
Even if Ron did not have access to addtional examples, YOU now know that the pictoglyphs are common throughout the area and date from at the least, 1000 years before the Biblical date of the Exodus.
YOU can certainly change your website and present all of the evidence even if Ron can't.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 3:31 PM JimSDA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 4:29 PM jar has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 172 of 307 (205651)
05-06-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 3:38 PM


Re: Credit goes where credit's due.....
JimSDA writes:
if Ron never went into Saudi Arabia in '84 and '85 (and risked his life in doing so), you folks would never even have any pictures to argue about!
But we haven't seen any pictures. The photo of the "ark" on your website looks like something the cat hawked up.
JimSDA writes:
... SO HOW ABOUT YOU ALL ADMITTING THAT IT WAS A GOOD THING FOR RON TO GO OVER THERE?
Frankly, I couldn't possibly care less if anybody ever finds the Ark of the Covenant or Noah's Ark or the Holy Grail or the spork that Jesus used to eat the Last Supper. So, no, I don't think it was a good thing for Wyatt to go over there. He should have used the money for some worthwhile purpose, like helping the poor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 3:38 PM JimSDA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 4:31 PM ringo has not replied

JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 307 (205662)
05-06-2005 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jar
05-06-2005 3:44 PM


Re: The AofC was covered
Jar, you are such a pathetic coward!
Tell me when and where that photo of that petroglyph came from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It has "nothing to do with the issue"????????
I'M TELLING YOU THAT RON NEVER HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OTHER PETROGLYPHS IN SAUDI ARABIA IN 1984 AND 1985 WHEN HE WAS THERE, OR IN 1992 WHEN HE FINALLY GOT HIS FOOTAGE -- SO TELL ME WHEN THAT DAMN PICTURE WAS PUBLISHED!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 3:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 4:38 PM JimSDA has replied
 Message 178 by AdminNosy, posted 05-06-2005 8:05 PM JimSDA has not replied

JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 307 (205663)
05-06-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ringo
05-06-2005 3:51 PM


Re: Credit goes where credit's due.....
Ringo316, you have the complete freedom to be as ignorant or as stupid as you wish -- it's your God-given right -- and I see that you're into exercising it in regard to viewing Ron's evidence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 05-06-2005 3:51 PM ringo has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 175 of 307 (205666)
05-06-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 4:29 PM


Re: The AofC was covered
And I'm telling you the other picture has NOTHING to do with the questions I asked. I have NO idea when it was published. Who cares. It has NOTHING to do with the rock and MYTH Ron and YOU are trying to sell.
Are you going to publish the evidence from the ROCK YOU and Ron identified as an altar that refute your claims?
This one!
Are you going to publish the information that such pictoglyphs date from at least 1000 years before the alleged Exodus?
It's real simple JimDSA. It's time to follow standard procedures.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 4:29 PM JimSDA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by JimSDA, posted 05-07-2005 9:49 AM jar has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 176 of 307 (205702)
05-06-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 10:36 AM


You blame the contradiction on Moses being a poor writer?
Dear JimSDA;
the 2 cherubim were placed "on" the AofC -- the Bible clearly says that they were put "on the ends" -- so they were attached to sides. If they had been put actually "on" the mercy seat lid they would be in the way of the blood being sprinkled onto the mercy seat by the High Priest. . . . when Moses wrote Exodus "writing" was a new form of communication, and it can be difficult to clearly understand some of the things that are written, which includes the phrasing/translation of putting the cherubim "on the sides" of the AofC! . . . As I show on my website, others have also put the cherubim standing upright on the sides of the AofC, so Ron was not the only person to have this interpretation.
The scripture I cited was a description of the cover of the Ark, the Cherubs were on the ends of the cover. Reread for yourself.
(Exodus 25:17-21) "And you must make a cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits its length and a cubit and a half its width. And you must make two cherubs of gold. Of hammered work you are to make them on both ends of the cover. And make one cherub on this end and one cherub on that end. On the cover YOU are to make the cherubs at its two ends. And the cherubs must be spreading out their two wings upward, screening over the cover with their wings, with their faces one toward the other. Toward the cover the faces of the cherubs should be."
Now you have also claimed that writing was new so Moses is hard to understand, so you blame the contradiction on Moses being a poor writer? I gather from this that you can see that what Moses wrote contradicts what Ron claims to have seen. Moses got it right, the description of the Ark's cover in Exodus chapter 25 matches the description given in Chapter 37, in both descriptions the cherubs are on the ends of the cover and are not on the ends of the Ark itself as Ron claims to have seen them.
(Exodus 37:1-9) "Bezalel now made the Ark of acacia wood. Two cubits and a half was its length, and a cubit and a half its width, and a cubit and a half its height. Then he overlaid it with pure gold inside and outside and made a border of gold round about for it. After that he cast four rings of gold for it, for above its four feet, with two rings on its one side and two rings on its other side. He next made poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. Then he put the poles through the rings on the sides of the Ark for carrying the Ark. And he went on to make the cover of pure gold. Two cubits and a half was its length, and a cubit and a half its width. He further made two cherubs of gold. Of hammered work he made them on both ends of the cover. One cherub was on the end over there, and the other cherub on the end over here. He made the cherubs on the cover on both of its ends. And they came to be cherubs spreading out two wings upward, screening over the cover with their wings, and their faces were one to the other. The faces of the cherubs proved to be toward the cover."
"He made the cherubs on the cover on both of its ends." This is pretty plain, and is a repetition of the earlier description which also put the cherubs on the cover, there is no way they were on the ends of the Ark. In the Book of Hebrews Paul also states that the cherubs were above the ark or on the cover. The biblical evidence is clear, the Cherubs were on the cover, the reason Ron said they were on the ends is simple, he went by an old picture what showed the cherubs on the ends of the Ark. Ron merely repeated an old error, which shows that he never actually saw the Ark or he would have gotten the description right.
As for lid mounted cherubs being in the way of sprinkling blood, the blood wasn't sprinkled on the Ark, it was sprinkled on the ground in front of the Ark, which was towards the east.
(Leviticus 16:14) . . ."And he must take some of the bull's blood and spatter it with his finger in front of the cover on the east side, and he will spatter some of the blood with his finger seven times before the cover."
The weight of the gold would have been problamatic if the lid and the cherubim were actually "solid" gold -- so somehow the cherubim had to be hollow, and the lid perhaps made of wood and the lid and the cherubim were covered with "solid" gold?
The Ark was light, it was after all designed to be carried, my point was that Ron described seeing a very heavy 500 lb type cover which the real Ark clearly didn't have.
Regarding the blood of Christ going onto the AofC, yes, this is "new" information -- "new light" -- but it makes perfect sense. Yes, if Jesus had ONLY pled His blood in heaven it would have been sufficient. But I see no problem with Him having done both! And, by the way, there IS a Bible verse that seems to indicate that it was necessary:
The extremely important 70 Week Prophecy of Daniel 9:24 includes the phrase "and to anoint the most Holy" -- most have assumed that this meant that the Jews had a time limit on accepting and annointing their Messiah, Jesus -- but it can also be interpreted to mean that at the end of His life on earth the Messiah was to annoint the "most Holy" object on the planet (the AofC) that had been placed in the "Most Holy" apartment of the Sanctuary!
So Ron believes that the AofC was annointed with Christ's blood which sealed the New Covenant.
Moses used blood and water to seal the Old Covenant, and sprinkled it on the AofC -- so to seal the New Covenant, Christ annointed/sprinkled His blood on the AofC.
Also, you say that the New Covenant wasn't in place until Pentecost -- but in Matthew 27:52-53 it says that many of the saints arose when Jesus died on the cross! To us that means that the New Covenant was in place as soon as His blood annointed the AofC -- if the New Covenant wasn't in place until 40 days later, then those saints would have had to wait until then!
First read the verses carefully (Matthew 27:51-52) "And, look! the curtain of the sanctuary was rent in two, from top to bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rock-masses were split. And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were raised up," Notice that Matthew didn't say that the dead persons were resurrected, brought back to life or raise up, he said that their "bodies" were raised up. What happened here is simple, there was an earth quake which broke open many of the tombs and the dead bodies were tossed up and exposed to passerby's who went into the city and told people what they had seen. A literal resurrection of the dead is not referred to here, no other verse in the NT refers to this event which if it had been a massive resurrection of the dead, it would have many NT references. But even allowing for the possibility that a massive resurrection is referred to in the verse, such an event would not require the New Covenant as having already been inaugurated, since Christ raised many people before he died. Also, if the New Covenant went into effect when Jesus died, that would contradict what Paul taught in Hebrews, that Jesus redeemed us by offering his blood before Jehovah God in heaven. So there is no way that the New Covenant went into effect before Jesus acted as high priest in Heaven.
(Hebrews 9:24) "For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us."
Christ entered heaven and appeared before Jehovah with the value of his shed blood and acted as high priest and redeemed mankind. A literal pouring of blood before the literal Ark when Jesus died would contradict the whole foundation of what happened.
The whole purpose of the Ark and the temple is that they served as an illustration of what Jesus would do in our behalf, they were not the real thing.
(Hebrews 10:1) "For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things,"
(Colossians 2:17) "for those things are a shadow of the things to come, "
(Hebrews 9:24-26) "For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us. Neither is it in order that he should offer himself often, as indeed the high priest enters into the holy place from year to year with blood not his own. Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself".
The whole point of the Temple and the Ark, was that they pictured Jesus going to heaven with the value of his shed blood and entering the real most holy; heaven, and going before the Ark; Jehovah's presence, and offered the blood of his sacrifice; the value of his sinless human life. Paul in the above verse is clear on the point that Jesus did not enter into the Temple's Most Holy nor did he offer his blood before the Ark which is merely a shadow or copy of the reality made by human hands. Jesus offered his life's value not before the Ark but before the very person of God for us. That is when he offered it, there is no allowance for an earlier literal pouring of his blood before the Ark when he died, that would be in conflict with the whole biblical teaching of Jesus' salvation of mankind.
On the 70 Week Prophecy of Daniel 9:24 and the phrase "and to anoint the most Holy" refers to Jesus offering the value of his shed blood before God in heaven. The Most Holy, the room in the temple that contained the Ark, pictured heaven and the Ark pictured Jehovah God's presence. As Paul stated in above verse, the "holy place" or Most Holy, pictured "heaven" and that is where Jesus offered the value of his blood, that act "anointed" heaven not the Ark.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 10:36 AM JimSDA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by JimSDA, posted 05-07-2005 9:40 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 182 by JimSDA, posted 05-07-2005 10:37 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 219 by JimSDA, posted 05-09-2005 10:29 AM wmscott has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 177 of 307 (205740)
05-06-2005 7:56 PM


Great Debate?
This topic has given me great amusement
That aside, I have noticed that tempers have flared quite dramaticaly on both sides of the issue. I feel that JimSDA may feel a little "ganged up " on.
Perhapse it will be better for a one on one debate, between JimSDA, and one of us. That way we can each lay out our case, examine the evidence (or lack thereof) and no questions will be avoided.
I, or anyone else here who would rather do it, would be all up for discussing this One on One.
Jar, would you like to?
Anyway, JimSDA if your up to teh challenge please reply!
Best regards!

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 178 of 307 (205741)
05-06-2005 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 4:29 PM


Name calling like children?
Jar, you are such a pathetic coward!
Another warning for you Jim. Next suspension will be two days.
Thanks for showing some maturity.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-06-2005 09:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 4:29 PM JimSDA has not replied

JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 307 (205824)
05-07-2005 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by wmscott
05-06-2005 6:00 PM


A drawing of the mercy seat ...
WMScott -- I want post a visual of the mercy seat on this forum, but don't know how to do it -- it will help explain how the cherubim were put "on the ends" of the lid -- I will scan the image and send it via e-mail to you, and maybe you can post it on the forum here for me?
Wow, it worked! There's the image -- and as it is clear to see, the cherubims were attached to the ENDS of the mercy seat lid!
This message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-09-2005 10:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by wmscott, posted 05-06-2005 6:00 PM wmscott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by AdminAsgara, posted 05-07-2005 10:48 AM JimSDA has not replied

JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 307 (205826)
05-07-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
05-06-2005 4:38 PM


Jar doesn't know the date ...
Jar, the date of when that pic was published is extremely important to you for making your case against Ron! If, as I point out, that Ron never had a chance to see any of the other pictoglyphs in the other parts of Saudi Arabia, then Ron never schemed about covering up anything! And his opinion of the petroglyphs being on the Golden Calf Altar was 100% logical! You say he covered up things and had to know about the other petroglyphs, and I'm telling you that he never knew about them! And again, the dating of the petrogylphs is something that is up for debate -- and we will not even begin to agree with anyone's dating time table that goes beyond a 6,000 year total time period (the Bible's chronology).
You can "assume" that the petroglyphs pre-date the Exodus, but all of that is up for argument -- it ain't, as we might say, "written in stone"!
This message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-07-2005 09:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 4:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 05-07-2005 10:24 AM JimSDA has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024