Wyatt's Ark of the Covenent

JimDSAHow is the date of the other picture related to whether or not Ron published all of the pictures that were on the rock he identified as an altar?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

WMScott, are you really sure that you want to say that you have "perfect knowledge" of what God means when He inspired Daniel to write "and anoint the most Holy"? Are you absolutely sure that you can say that you know you're absolutely right?Come on now, you know that you're only human, and no matter how much studying you've done you cannot claim to have absolute perfect understanding of Daniel 9 and what it did or did not mean to "anoint the most HOLY"!WMScott, do you have access to the SKY ANGEL satellite system? Can you see any of their programs? I have the DISH satellite and that has one of their channels -- the reason I ask is that it would be great if you could see a certain show called A ROOD AWAKENING! Michael Rood is doing a 6-part presentation about the Temple and Ron's discovery of the Ark of the Covenant -- and the next segment (part 6) is entitled "To Anoint the Most Holy!" A ROOD AWAKENING is on twice a week, Tuesday nights at 11pm, and Saturday afternoons at 12:30 -- let me know if you can see the show, OK?Regarding your interpretation about the bodies coming out of the graves, I don't think it agrees with Scripture -- I use the King James, and it clearly says in Matthew 27:52-53 that the sleeping saints arose (they didn't just have their bodies dumped out on the ground, what a gross and disrespectful thing for God to do to them!) and then they "went into the holy city and appeared to many"!These people were the "first fruits" of the resurrection, and in our understanding these people became the "24 elders" when they joined Elijah and Enoch and Moses in heaven.Jesus/Yeshua had just conquered death -- and He didn't want to have to wait 2,000 years to resurrect some of the people He died for! So those first few saints came resurrected out of their graves, they went into Jerusalem and testified about God's Son, and then they went to heaven in their perfect new eternal bodies.Your interpretation of them just being flopped out onto the ground as corpses is far short of what really happened, my friend.This message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-07-2005 04:02 PMThis message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-07-2005 04:05 PM

JimTo paste a picture on the site here, first it needs to be a web picture. (if the picture you want to include is on your computer, you can upload it to a site such as ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs which will host your picture and give you the code to post it on the forum.This is the preferred way to work with web pictures also. Deep linking to an image from someone else's website can cause bandwidth issues for them is not good netiquette.

---

You can also email a drawing or picture to Admin@ and he can make it a part of the site here.

---

If the picture is from the web, you can use UBB code which is[img]your url[/img]or html which isIf the picture is large, you will probably want to use the html and add the width to the tag like thisThis helps keep the page sizes reasonable

---

Admin has also added a new feature which creates thumbnails. To do this use[thumb]your url[/thumb]

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Jar, part of your criticism of Ron is that you think he knew about the other petroglyphs in Saudi Arabia, and I've been telling you that Ron never knew about them!And when Ron finally got pictures in 1992 from the people who went to the site, what makes you think that they photographed ALL the petroglyphs? What if they only gave Ron a few shots? What if they never got pictures of all the petroglyphs? You don't know when or if Ron ever saw those other drawings! I don't even know!It's taken several people making several trips there to get all the pics we have -- and we're still not done!Cut Ron and the rest of us some slack -- DO YOU OR DON'T YOU WANT THE MT. SINAI SITE FULLY INVESTIGATED? That's what true science demands! And that's what we are trying to do!Remember that I mentioned that Dr. Lennart Moller's 2-hr documentary film is about ready to be released? There's a good chance that he might deal with all these other petroglyphs! So how about being a little patient and waiting to see what he does with the material? You might be pleasantly surprised --

The photographs that Ron used were modified to get rid of those elements he did not want. THe age of the pictographs were known. If Ron were competent or honest, he would have found that out, rather than make declarations about them that are nonsense.

Ramoss, show me the pics -- both versions -- I want to see the evidence that Ron (or someone) modified the pics. Or provide links to the pics, either is fine with me.

I have sent the image of page 265 in Moller's book where he shows the very same pics you guys have been talking about to an Admin person to upload here -- which proves that we are not hiding anything!Wow, it actually worked! . . . This message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-09-2005 10:18 AM

JimSDA,Don't worry, they are going to fight you to the end. Just expect that. I've learned how atheists operate. They rely only on "popular science" to tell them "what's true and what's not". Until they realize that they're being lied to and have been duped, you won't get anywhere with them. In the end, they will see that Ron Wyatt was right after all. We just have to be patient as we come upon the closing scenese of earth's history. For now all that can be left is prayer. If prayer wasn't anything virtuous, we'd be banging our heads on the wall.And for your image on page 265, it's really easy for you to upload the picture yourself, do you know how? If not, you can send it to me and I'll upload it for you. But I suggest you try as it's pretty easy:The best way is to go to Photobucket and sign up for an account and upload the image there. Then, use the "[img.]" (remove period) tag to display the picture in this thread.Do it like this: [img.]placeURLhere[/img.] (remove periods after "img"...displayed as such only so they show as text in post and not Red Xed url), and the image will be displayed. You do not have to be an administrator to upload pictures. You can img tag up to 8 of them. Also, I suggest that when you are quoting someone and are specifically addressing certain points, that you make use of the [quote] tag. Do it thus [quote.]"QuotePersonHere"[/quote.] (remove periods after "quote"...displayed as such only so they show as text in post and not Red Xed url).Then reply to each quote in systematic order. This way your critics can feel satisfied that you are addressing particular issues they raise and will not be able to complain that you are ignoring them. Many times I notice that you answer their questions in various ways throughout your posts, but they're hard to spot and some of the critics go on thinking that you're ignoring them.I sent David Patriot some exclusive information on Noah's Ark. Hopefully he'll review it with a fine tooth comb and come to realize how satan has duped the world into thinking that Ron's discoveries are a fraud.Every eye will see the truth in the end. This assurance brings me peace at heart.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 05-07-2005 06:23 PM

You know, jar is not an atheist. Nor is wmscott.Unfortunately Wyatt's 'work' simply does not hold up under critical scruttiny and it is plainly obvious to anyone reading this thread.

Actually Yaro, in my estimation anyone who does not accept the scriptures as the fully inspired word of God is an atheist in my eyes. It spells criticism against any data supporting the events described in the biblical account.Wyatt's work does hold up against the worst scruttiny imagined. It's only people like you who are duped into thinking they are not valid because you've been fed with lies and deceit. The book "Discoveries: Questions Answered" totally demolishes 99% of every critical scruttiny you can imagine. I know, I own the book.The more I study, the more I know Ron's discoveries are authentic. You are simply deceived by traditional/popular false science (a tool devised by non-other than the arch deceiver himself).And I say this with confidence. It's not just my opinion. I know this to be a fact. I've been exposed to enough to know this.Evolution fails FAR MORE against true scientific scrutiny than these discoveries ever could! When one is to suppose existence emerged from a rock, or that a fossil had kids and created another fossil that slowly evolved over time, you'd have to have a mental deficiency to not see that it is utter baloney.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 05-07-2005 08:01 PMThis message has been edited by Lysimachus, 05-07-2005 08:03 PM

Thing is, nobody ever claimed anything like that.Now let's get back on topic - let's wait and see what that picture of the petroglyph shows. Oh, and we're still waiting for an expanation of the dating of the glyphs (see Message 168 for example).

---

09/04/05 - Sharks attacked
30/04/05 - Wasps swatted
14/05/05 - More of the same ?

... I'm not a scientist. I don't proport to be. I like science well enugh, I have an interest in it, but science has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.All science, ideology, emotion aside, none of the 'evidence' presented is good enugh to draw the conclusions wyatt has.Imagine this in a court of law. How can wyatt prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that blurry picture (who's origins are shroudded in the deepest mystery) is the ark of the covenant?I mean seriously, do you know the big deal that would erupt over such a find! Archeologists and historians have gotten much more excited about much less.Maybe wyatt did find the Ark, heck I'll give it to you, everything he said was true. Now what? There is nothing you can do, cuz all the evidence is gone, lost, missing. All we have is hearsay and stories. So what good is it.Imagine I told you I discoverd the cure for Aids but then lost the recipie in a wind storm. So what? Were still at square one as far as anyone else is concerned.I mean what do you hope to gain out of all of this?Wyatt lost the homework, he aint getting credit untill he turns it in. Simple as that.

Oh, one more thing: Why do you and JimSDA seem to equate Ron Wyatt with the bible?I mean, he most certainly WAS a man. Yet you are treating his "research" as if it were holly or inerrant. I mean seriously, who gives a crap weather his research was real or a hoax, is it gonna hurt your faith?I almost have a feeling that it will. It seems you guys have latched on to this Wyatt malarky to justify your beliefs. Do you two NEED Wyatt's discoveries in order to keep beliving in christianity?

Ok, this is the photo of the aleged ark. This is supposed to be a helpfull labled diagram. It still looks like blurry crap to me. Because Im board I added some helpfull outlines: Some notes:What is all that extra crap we see on the sides of the ark (in red)?Notice the proportions of the "angels" to the mercy seat. The seat is rather small don't you think?Finaly, how do you know this thing is the ark and not a blurry hunk of pecan pie?

...i would like to mention how hard it is to take such a ludicrously bad image. heck, when i tried making similar stuff (as art, btw) it took a really bad camera, and bringing the subject so close that the lens could not focus on it.just for kicks, here's my incredibly deceptive encounter with the ark of the covenant. here's the cave in which i found it, in toledo ohio. here's the mercy seat with the cherubim. the wings actually go the other way. the bible's wrong, sorry. here's the cups and vessels and stuff. you can even make out the rods! and here's the angels that showed it to me. in other words, in my professional opinion, wyatt is (was) being purposefully decptive. i mean, it's not THAT hard to use a camera correctly, where as it's hard to mess an image up THAT badly. blurry images shouldn't be convincing to ANYONE. i mean, how do we know it's a chunk of pecan pie or the ark of the covenant, and not say, the loch ness monster?while we're on the topic, here's some better blurry photos of the loch ness monster. heck, at least the loch ness people had the good sense to photoshop that last ridiculously bad photo so it looked more convincing: keep in mind these were shot UNDERWATER too. why couldn't wyatt have at least shot something comparable THROUGH AIR?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-07-2005 10:44 PM

---

אָרַח