Wyatt's Ark of the Covenent

i think he's a quack. do you really need to ask? do some research on him, he's nuts. he claims to have just about everything ever mentioned in the bible.

the james ossuary is fake? damn, i should placed a betting pool on that one too...

hahaha.

only if ron wyatt is a genuine prophet of the divine, or perhaps the messiah. that is sort of the position we're arguing here, right? he claims to have found these things according to divine inspiration.whether or not he's right, he seems to have thought god talked to him, and lead him places.

---

אָרַח

there's some disputed references to a group of people called "habiru" or "ibiru" or "apiru." might even be the origin of the name "hebrew" but i'm not sure. there's some stuff down at the bottom of this pageas for enslavement -- well, the closest we have is the opposite way around.

---

אָרַח

yeah, i think that's more or less what the link said, too.

...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

for photoshop, it's nothing either.we're discussing a similar topic in the jesus/toarh-nevi'im-psalms thread. what use is prophesy, if it's only revealed to prophets and nobody else?i think i'm gonna do a summer project sometime called "let's discredit ron wyatt!" basically, make a nice-looking fake ark, and run around town photographing yourself with it. and i mean, real, nice, clear photos. kind of like what you'd do if you stole your neighbor's garden gnome.i mean, how do we know that "photo" was even shot by ron wyatt? how do we know it's a photo? how do we know it was shot in israel? we can't even establish the basic frame or reference for it, let alone tell what it's a picture OF.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-07-2005 11:00 PM

---

אָרַח