Wyatt's Ark of the Covenent

Anybody who is willing to give Vendyl Jones the benefit of the doubt, or Ron Wyatt the benefit of the doubt, based on the evidence, is totally unrealistic.

JimDSAQuit flaunting the Forum Guidelines. We make allowances for folk like you and don't hold you to as high standards of behavior, morals or debate as we would an Atheist. But there are limits.The questions can be found in Message 55, Message 60, and several other places.This message has been edited by jar, 05-03-2005 10:22 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Jim, I think it would be unrealistic to assume that the Philistines didnt have a little peek at the Ark, given human nature. I see, this is different from what the original post said, but fair enough.Since this thread is about the AofC, I will restrict myself to that artifact.Can you appreciate how certain people are skeptical regarding Ron's alleged discovery of the AofC, I mean he hasnt provided any direct evidence has he?Do we have anything other than his word that he found the AofC?Brian.

A big problem that I see with Ron was the fact that he wasnt an archaeologist. He could have destroyed upteen clues by not following conventional archaeological methods.But, what I find surprising is not the lack of evidence for Ron's claims but the fact that we have had scores of conservative christian archaeologists who have worked in the near east for over a century and none of them have found anything to compare with just one of Ron's finds. Surely you have to admit that it ie a little strange that this 'nurse' wanders in to the near east and finds almost every biblical artifact there is. Now, im not saying he didnt find them, but it does appear a little fortunate, to say the least.Brian.

What makes you say that it is unrealistic to give anyone the benefit of a doubt, ramoss? When you give someone the benefit of a doubt it shows that you are willing to look at their evidence in an impartial and fair manner whether you agree with their conclusions or not!

I think the biggest reason is that Ron never provided any evidence and that so much of what he did assert was evidence was critically flawed, selective in nature and unavailable. He never submitted anything for peer review and as in the case of the pictoglyphs on his alleged "Altar of the Calves", definitely modified.Any one of many infractions that Ron committed would have been enough to get any researcher sanctioned and most likely tossed out of science all together.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar: Turkey, like Egypt , has what are called 'tourist police' their job is to watch the foreign visitors visiting their nation similar to Syria's plainclothes secret police. The former Soviet Union had secret police watch the foreigners when they visited the USSR. A secret police watching the actions of every foreigner is hardly the actions of a secular nation.

I'm sorry but you will need to

1. support that assertion.
2. show how it relates to secular vs theocratic.
3. explain how the Soviet Union was not a secular Nation.
4. show some evidence that such behavior exists and is of a Muslim driven cause.
5. explain why Turkey's Military stepped in and deposed a theocratic (Islamic actually) government when they tried to take the Nation from Secularism to a Theocracy.
   

But then perhaps we can deal with the remaining questions which JimDSA has been avoiding.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar: The pictoglyphs show cattle, antelope or gazelles and sheep. Did the wandering Israelites have cattle,sheep and some antelope or gazelles when they left Egypt? With the unlikely probability of the Israelites having domesticated antelope and gazelles, it is possible the pictoglyphs at Jabal El Lawz were made by the Israelites? Unfortunately, the site is controlled by the Saudi Military as part of their Operation Falcon defense installations. I cannot give an answer until I go to the site and carry out my preliminary survey.

So are you going to respond to the specific questions I asked or like JimDSA simply try to change the subject?But let's look at your response. First, Ron Wyatt alleges that this is an Altar, a religious Icon.Here is a picture of the Rock. If this is, as Ron claims, "The Altar of the Calves", why is there not ONE single picture of a calf on it?Why is there no form or order to the pictoglyphs?Why are the glyphs themselves identical in form to those common in Arabia and across North Africa that were done by people between 6000-3000BC?Why if this is "The Altar of the Calves" are their pictoglyphs of men slinging their shlongs?Why if this is "The Altar of the Calves" are there pictures of goats, hunting, dogs, camels (probably Clyde) and other animals?Why did Ron try to hide the fact that what he calls "Typical Egyptian Symbols" of a man supporting a calf is in reality two seperate drawings with tha man a classic phallic symbol? (see below) Compare the image denoted by the red arrow in the picture above to the airbrushed and modified picture Ron used as evidence as seen below.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Archaic, One of the major problems in the debate surrounding the origins of Ancient Israel is that to have an Exodus you need to show that there was an extremely large group of people who referred to themselves as Israelites who were in bondage in Egypt during the 2nd millenium BCE. So far no one, and I include respected scholars such as William Albright, George Wright, and WIlliam Dever, have found any direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt at ths time.But, the fact that these are generic symbols does not support an Israelite group, it could refer to any nomadic or semi-nomadic contemporary group.I think Bill Dever summed the whole debate up nicely when he declared the exodus as being a 'dead issue'. Highly trained scholars have been looking for evidence of the enslavement and Exodus, for well over one hundred years. They haven't found any.So, before anyone assumes that these pictographs have anything to do with the Israelites they have to show some convincing evidence that this group existed in the first place. During this survey, what exactly would you be looking for that would identify these pictographs as Israelite?To do this a very basic question needs to be answered: When did the 'Israelites' begin to think of themselves as Israelite?Cheers.Brian.

ArchaicGuy, that's great that you had friends who worked with Ron and that you met David Fasold in '92! I know that National Geographic isn't all that bad, and both them and PBS do some good things -- and seeing that neither of them proclaims to be a "Christian" ministry, we get what we get from them. Oh well.Thanks for writing -- at times I forget that there can be lurkers reading these forums, and I need to control my words a little bit better, but it's frustrating when I only hear from people trying to chop me off at the knees . . . grin . . .

Brian, yes, the Philistines did sneek a look in the AofC -- 1 Samuel 6:13, and then verse 19 says that because they did over 50,000 of them were killed by the Levites!Here's another verse that says that the AofC was covered, Exodus 40:21, "And covered the Ark of the testimony as the Lord commanded Moses"!The evidence for the discovery of the AofC is at this current stage a test of people's spiritual discernment. That means that we study the scenario and see if it makes sense when compared to the events in Scripture!John 19:41 says that Jesus was crucified near a garden, and a new sepulchre was there, and the skull face of Golgotha -- so the first discovery we can credit to Ron is the discovery of the crucifixion site, as long as you agree that the skull face in the Calvary Escarpment is legit, and that the Garden Tomb is the real tomb where Christ was buried. Ron dug there and found evidence underground of crossholes -- and one of those crossholes had a crack beside it that ran down underground -- so the story is matching the biblical account! "The rocks were rent" when Christ died on the cross -- they were cracked by an earthquake -- which is what Ron said that he found evidence of.Ron said that when Christ was stabbed in His side the blood and water went down that crack, and the AofC had been buried in a cave about 20 feet below the crucifixion site and Christ's blood and water went onto the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant -- so, does this match what we know of the use that the Ark was put to in the Temple? Yes!God arranged the entire Sanctuary service around the yearly Day of Atonement where the High Priest would go into the Most Holy room of the Temple before the Ark of God and he would sprinkle blood onto the mercy seat of the Ark to atone for the sins of all Israel!Christ shed His blood for all mankind -- so it makes perfect sense that Christ's blood and water would go onto the mercy seat of the AofC!Furthermore, we are told in the Bible that the Old Covenant was sealed by the sprinkling of blood and water on the Ark and the Law and the people, so how would God seal the *New* Covenant? It had to be donethe same way, by sprinkling the blood and water onto the Ark!No other possible hiding place for the AofC includes this scenario of the blood of Christ going onto the Ark -- therefore this scenario is extremely important, and it is up to people to be able to discern the spiritual Truths contained within it!

Brian: The gentile nations didn't recognize Israel as a nation until the time of King Saul 400 years after the Exodus from Egypt. The Egyptians called them Hebrews when the Israelites were the Egyptians slaves. Did the Israelites recognize themselves as a nation during Saul's reign? Yes.But,their national existence didn't begin with Saul. That started with the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai wherever that is located? In Saudi Arabia? Traditional sites in the Sinai pennisula? or at Emmanuel Anati's Har Karkom site in Israel? Pictoglyphs have been found there similar to the Jabal El Lawz site.

Ah yes the blood of Jesus.Newcomers to this area may be surprised to find out that Mr.Wyatt found the blood of jesus.Read more about it here.http://EvC Forum: Blood of Jesus -->EvC Forum: Blood of Jesus