Wyatt's Ark of the Covenent

You mean to tell me that Jar is not one of your long-time buddies?He seems to be someone who lives on this EvC forum full time and has done so for years -- as if this is his one and only duty in life, being here to post 8 million messages and control the message threads as he sees fit to satisfy his ego and biases --Are you sure he's not one of your old-time buddies?

Jar, so clarify the question you want me to answer.

The latest news on the ivory pomegranate is in the current issue of B.A.R. magazine -- Hershal Shanks offered to buy the pomegranate from the Israel Museum for their cost, $550,000 -- but they turned him down.They say that the pomegrante IS of the proper time period, but just that the inscription on it is fake.When it is time to show the Ark of the Covenant to the world, we will know if Ron really found that pomegranate in that cave like he claims -- because Ron said that he broke off one of the tips and he left it in the cave!Before you get all angry about him "defacing" ancient relics, God told him to do it -- and frankly, God owns that pomegranate!

Jar, your answers:1) Turkey is a "westernized" Moslem country, which means lots of men wear business suits instead of the traditional robes, and the women don't have to cover their faces; and on all his trips to Turkey Ron only had contact with Moslems; so if we have to make a blanket statement about the country as to whether it is secular or Moslem or communist or atheist or Christian, the bulk of the evidence is on the side of it being Moslem.2) In 1984 and 1985 when Ron was in Saudi Arabia (a MOSLEM country that is very difficult for foreigners to get into), Ron did not get invited to tour the entire country and go hunting for petroglyphs! And in 1985 when a Saudi archaeologist saw the Egyptian style petroglyphs he too must have been ignorant of the other exampls because he told Ron that he had never seen anything like them in Saudi Arabia -- so I guess he was wrong.3) The dates of Egyptian dating and Moslem dating do NOT match the dating of the Bible, so Ron never considered those time tables as being reliable. There is no "6000 BC" in the Bible.4) I know of no images of petroglyphs that Ron modified.5) As far as I know Ron always said that they were petroglyphs of Egyptian style cows and bulls. And I explained earlier that Aaron made a calf out of gold, that is why the place was called "the golden calf altar" and the other guys they could have scribbled anything they wanted onto the rocks.6) The sign next to the guard shack warns people not to mess with things in the fenced off area, so it's logical to assume that the people watching the place would be guarding it and using that shack.7) There is nothing in the Exodus story that mentions a "altar of cows and bulls," so why would Ron ever think that this was "the altar of cows and bulls" -- the Bible tells about the Golden Calf Altar, and the golden calf that Aaron made is long gone.There are my answers.

Dead Parrot, both Ron and I and his other co-workers around the world believe that Creation Week was about 6,000 years ago -- so if somebody says "6,000 BC" that would mean 8,000 years ago, which does not match the chronology in the Bible.The chronology in the Bible clearly gives us a count of us presently being approximately 6,000 years from Creation.

So, Jar, how's your arm feeling?You must have done a lot of patting yourself on the back to congratulate yourself for being "oh-so-brilliant" in criticizing Ron and "the great calf controversy"!You need to understand the difference between Ron (who has been dead for 5 years now) preparing a generic presentation of his material as compared to preparing a master's thesis on the subject -- Ron never claimed to have done a master's thesis on his Mt. Sinai discovery and the golden calf altar, etc.! Cut the guy some slack!The in-depth answers you want are the answers that would come of an extensive 10-year investigation of the sites, AND THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER PERMITTED OUTSIDE ARCHAEOLOGISTS TO HAVE FULL AND UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE AREA! So the documentation we have is limited --To test how difficult it is to get there and do this work, I suggest that YOU give it a try to get into Saudi Arabia and arrange a full examination of Jebel el Lawz!Let's see how successful YOU would be, smart guy!Let's see you and/or some of your buddies get in there and do a documentation of all the petroglyphs around the area!

Jar, you need to quit writing your LIES -- you keep saying that Ron has "never" presented any evidence for "any" of his discoveries -- you are such a LIAR!And I don't care if they lock me out of this forum, the truth has to be told!Jar, YOU ARE A LIAR!A complete and total LIAR!This message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-05-2005 03:34 PM

Brian, there was no "talking hand" -- where did you get that idea? Ron's left arm raised and pointed and he said, "That's Jeremiah's Grotto and the ark of the covenant is in there" --Nobody ever said that Ron's HAND talked!You post is really silly, I think my time is better spent answering wmscott's more serious post . . .

mscott, thanks for posting your observations -- let me answer a few of them --When airplane manufactuers build planes and put wings "on" their planes, everyone knows that the wings are not actually put ON the body of the plane, the wings are attached to the sides of the plane -- and that is how we understand that 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 (who was told to only sprinkle the animal blood eastward, to his right).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?Sure, that's not how we would read it today, but you have to remember that 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.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!When Paul wrote about Christ applying His blood in heaven, he wrote that to stress the point that JESUS HAD RISEN and GONE TO HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN -- that was the big point that had to be told to the Jewish nation and the whole world! And the blood going onto the earthly AofC would have prompted people to go and try to DIG UP THE ARK, something God did NOT want them to do!THAT is probably why Paul didn't tell us about the blood going onto the AofC!This message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-06-2005 10:37 AMThis message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-06-2005 10:42 AM

Jar, we've always said that there were certain things that Ron withheld! He learned real early that he couldn't tell everything he knew, people would come along and STEAL them (as what happened when people dug up and robbed Noah's wife's grave) -- even Ron's widow Mary Nell left out some sensitive things in the new Noah's Ark book that was just published a few months ago!As for Ron "altering" evidence, I have no knowledge of him doing so.Are you sure you didn't mean to write "altaring"?As in Ron thinking the altar was an "golden calf altar" which would be "altaring" the opionion of all of you guys . . .This message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-06-2005 10:51 AM

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

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.

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

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!

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!