Wyatt's Ark of the Covenent

As the famous man said "There's more!"There is also the Sodom and Gomorrah nonsense, which is basically debunked in the same paragraph that it is introduced in.From the same link.Sodom-Gomorrah--Beyond Ron's impression (many of which came from the Lord) that the area which he had passed many times was Sodom, they knew they needed more evidence to prove it to people. The very night they hiked into the area looking for evidence, it rained in this place that gets only 1/4 inch of rain each year. This rain washed the rocks and the ash away which permeates the area, exposing millions of sulfur balls which is the biblical brimstone, and which God used to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, apparently the rain washed away the ash to reveal sulphur balls, and there is a 1/4 of an inch of rain each year in this area. Yet it was only this particular rainfall that revealed the sulphur balls! Why did none of the previous c. 4000 years of rain not reveal anything!But, in reality, no one knows for sure even where Sodom and Gomorrah are located, this is just another of Ron's unsupported claims.There's also Ron's claim that he knew how the pyramids were built.But, even the things you mention have gazillions of unsupported claims within them.I think a coffee house thread of Wyatt quotes would be amusing and informative.Brian.

Hi Jim, You are mistaken yet again.Thousands of stories about ANYTHING does not verify its existence, all it verifies is that there are thousands of stories about it.There are thousands of stories about alien abduction, does this verify that there are alien abductions?Stories Jim do not verify the existence of anything contained within these stories, you need external evidence that can be objectively studied and tested to verify anything. These stories may verify the belief in angels, but that is all.It is the same with 99% of Ron's work. A blurry pic of what he says is the Ark does not verify that it is a pic of the Ark. Ron claiming that 4 angels helped to lift the mercy seat off the Ark is not proof that there are angels, or indeed that there is an Ark. Ron saying that he has a video of angels keeping an eye on the Ark is similarly not proof of anything other than Ron is claiming that the video exists.Come on Jim, try thinking about what you are saying.Brian.PS, I think, as a Christian, Jar would have difficulty denying the existence of angels. I mean, who told Mary that she was pregnant, who told Joseph. The actual meaning of the word would make it impossible for a Christian to deny their existence.This message has been edited by Brian, 05-09-2005 11:45 AM

Hi Lysimachus,Thanks for the advice, but I do not believe that I am kicking against anything. I am all for objective research and sharing of information, but there simply too much emphasis placed on Ron's 'evidence'. If anyone else had provided evidence of this quality Lysimachus, you would not entertain it for a minute.But, hey, it's your life, you are free to believe what you want, so good luck to you. But, other people have different standards as to what constitutes reasonable evidence, it appears that I am a little more choosy than Ron's supporters are about what I believe .Ron's Ark story is a nice cosy little tale, but until something tangible is presented, it remains nothing more than a story.Brian.

Jim,I am talking about the Ark of the Covenant, and the blurry picture of it that Ron took.This thread is about the Ark of the Covenant not Noah's Ark.Of course I have heard of Akurgal, who sadly passed away a couple of years ago, but this is irrelevant as I didnt mention Noah's Ark. I think you will find that I am the only one who admits that there is evidence! I am certainly more professional than Wyatt ever was!Try and focus on who is saying what in the debate, this is the second mistake you have made in a handful of posts.If you weren't so hateful of everyone that disagree with you then people would be sympathetic and understand that these mistakes are probably as a result of having to deal with a lot of people at the same time.For what its worth, I can see the outline of what 'looks' like a boat, however, it has been shown that it is a natural formation. But let's keep that for the right thread.Brian.

Hi Lysimachus, Didn't Ron say that God told him to inform us that we would only see the Ark of Covenant when the time was right?I may be mistaken, but I am sure that Ron passed on a message or two from God to tell us why so many of Ron's finds are absent.Brian.

Indeed, and again I am the only one of your opponents who has agreed that there is evidence of all these things!.Having said that, of course, the evidence thatis presented is not of a decent standard. It does not stand up to critical historical enquiry. For example, there is far too much that is taken as being true without adequate support. The crossing at the red sea (which is not the sea mentioned in the Bible) is a great example of this. Everything associated with this event are empty statements. There is no critical enquiry at all, no evidence of Israelites in Egypt, no chronological support, no evidence that Israelites were at Aqaba, and the Bible narrative itself contradicts Ron's fantasy.Yes, there is evidence of all of these finds, but the evidence is chronically poor. Ron's accounts are simply childlike and severely lacking in academic quality. if Ron had any training at all in history or archaeololgy he would probably been able to string together coherent hypotheses. But, then again, if he had any training in history or archaeology hw would see how pointless all of these stories are. So, you believe that Ron was a prophet of Yahweh? Why?I mean, what if we did find some decent evidence that supports Israelites in Egypt, or thousands of Egyptian soldiers at the bottom of the Sea of Reeds (not the Red Sea as Ron incorrectly asserts), or we find direct evidence of Moses' existence, what difference would it make?You do know, that in terms of archaeological methodology, that finding a boat in the Mountains of Ararat, even if it had 'Noah' emblazoned on its side, only supports the hypothesis that at one time someone built a boat and put the word 'Noah' on the side of it. This find DOES NOT prove that there was an historical Noah, it doesn't prove that there was a Flood, it doesn't prove that all the animals went into this ark, it doesn't prove that there is a God, it doesn't prove anything else except there's a boat there.Just say that there is a boat where Ron imagines there is one, how do we know that this wasn't constructed a long time ago by an ancient 'Ron Wyatt'?Jim, you were curator of a museum, have you no training in any related subject at all. Don't take this as an insult, it is just an observation, but you *appear* to have a very niave view of what history and archaeology actually is. Your view, for example, that stories about angels verify the existence of angels displays a non-critical approach to evidence that no competent scholar in any related field would take.Any historian, or archaeologist, HAS to deliberately tackle ALL of the evidence, they have to argue in their research why their particular interpretation of the evidence is the best one. They CANNOT ignore contrary evidence, they NEED to include it and deal with it adequately because any peer who reviews their work will highlight the problems that the researcher may have ignored. Now, it could be that the researcher is unaware of a certain piece of evidence and this is where peer review is essential as it gives the researcher a chance to tackle the apparent problem before they present their paper at a conference or to a publisher. They have been in the open for 25 years, and have all crumbled under critical enquiry.Have you ever wondered why no respectable scholar is using Ron's 'evidence' in any of the quality acadedmic journals?Brian.

Apart from Ron's 'talking hand', i think the highlight has got to be Ron's picture of the Ark of the Covenant.It looks more like my cat's litter tray.Ron's finds are great comic value, it is just a pity that there are some people who take Ron's work seriously.We defo need more Wyatt threads, it is a great way to relax during lunch hour.Oh, and you should patent that avatar! Brian.

No it didn't!