Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wyatt's Ark of the Covenent
ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 151 of 307 (205308)
05-05-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by JimSDA
05-05-2005 9:39 AM


Re: Jar is still blowing his horn
Oh.
Then you will be able to present a peer reviewed article in an archelogical journal that Ron Wyatt wrote about his discoveries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by JimSDA, posted 05-05-2005 9:39 AM JimSDA has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 152 of 307 (205316)
05-05-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by JimSDA
05-05-2005 9:34 AM


Re: Still wait for even one answer to ANY of my questions.
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
So Mr. Wyatt actually only has the knowledge that can be gleaned from a superficial survey of the site in question? He seems awfully sure of his conclusions in light of that fact.
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!
No. He gets no slack. If makes these claims he needs to be able back them up. It is clear he hasn't. The fact that you happen to believe him is not evidence. The fact that most people don't isn't a refutation either, but the lack of clear evidence is pretty damning.
So, Jar, how's your arm feeling?
It must be getting pretty tired from slapping all your points around repeatedly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by JimSDA, posted 05-05-2005 9:34 AM JimSDA has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 153 of 307 (205386)
05-05-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by JimSDA
05-05-2005 9:39 AM


what if I can show you that Ron's 'discovery' is in conflict with the Bible?
Dear JimSDA;
This thread seems to be going nowhere, so let me try a different angle. You believe that Ron Wyatt discovered the Ark of the Covenant which supports the Bible as being true. Now my point is what if I can show you that Ron's 'discovery' is in conflict with what the Bible states? Are you going to believe the Word of God or the word of Ron Wyatt? Any major conflict between what Ron has claimed to have discovered and what the Bible states, would of course show that Ron was wrong. Let's start with his description of the Ark.
In Mr. Wyatt's last visit to the cave he was stunned to see all the rock, boards, and other unnecessary items removed. The furnishings were placed in their proper configuration. Heavenly messengers had cleaned out the cave. The wall in back of the Ark is pure crystal and reflects all the colors of the rainbow. (The heavenly Ark has a rainbow over it.) After seeing the cave cleaned out, Ron's thoughts turned to considering how to open the ark and retrieve the Ten Commandments. This would be a difficult task since the five ft. tall angels and the Mercy Seat were solid gold and would weigh approximately 500 pounds. At this point four angels appeared next to the Ark. They were in the form of men. They asked Ron to position his video camera to film what was to happen next. The four angels lifted up the top of the Ark and said, "Reach in, take the Ten Commandments out. When a world-wide law is passed forcing men to violate the Law of God, then they will be shown to mankind." Mr. Wyatt laid the 10 C's on a shelf in the cave along with the video showing their removal. The Ten Commandments are on two tablets of stone and have writing on both sides. They are written in Proto-Aramaic.
Ark of the Covenant, Pt. 2
Considering the fact that the Ark was a wooden box covered with gold and was supported by two long wooden pools and was designed to be man carried on the shoulders of the priests. Ron's descriptions of just the lid of the Ark looking like it weighed 500 pounds and took four angels to lift it, doesn't sound like the biblical Ark at all. The poles that the Ark was carried with, were less than the size of the Most Holy in the Tabernacle, which was 10 cubits. With the Ark being 2.5 cubits long, and the poles having a length of less than 10 cubits, there was only enough room for probably four men to carry the Ark on their shoulders. Considering the fact that they were able to carry it long distances such as seven times around Jericho, it didn't have a 500 pound lid.
His description of the angels on the Ark is also wrong. From your web site.
The Ark of the Covenant does not look like most of us expected the Ark to look like -- most renderings of the Ark show the Cherubim sitting up "on" the Mercy Seat -- but Ron says that the Cherubim are actually standing on the SIDES of the Ark. If you think about it, this makes more sense -- after all, the Ark of the Covenant represents the THRONE OF GOD! Do mere angels belong "on" God's throne? No, they would be standing beside God's throne.
Page not found – Pinkoski.com
The problem here is that the Bible clearly states that the two cherubs are not on the sides but are mounted on the lid. Here in Exodus is the directions for making the cover of the Ark and the two Cherubs that were on the cover and not the sides of the Ark.
(Exodus 25:17-21) "And you must make a cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits its length and a cubit and a half its width. And you must make two cherubs of gold. Of hammered work you are to make them on both ends of the cover. And make one cherub on this end and one cherub on that end. On the cover YOU are to make the cherubs at its two ends. And the cherubs must be spreading out their two wings upward, screening over the cover with their wings, with their faces one toward the other. Toward the cover the faces of the cherubs should be."
Since the cherubs were on the cover and not the ends of the Ark, and the Ark itself was only 2 and a half cubits long, or a little than four feet long, it seems highly improbably that two, five foot tall angels as massive as Ron described them, could be mounted on such a small lid with their wings out stretched towards each other. Ron clearly isn't describing the actual Ark, his description doesn't match.
The point about the cherubs not being on the seat of God is also in error since God isn't said to sit on the lid of the Ark, but rather is said to be described as sitting above the cherubs. (1 Samuel 4:4) "So the people sent to Shiloh and carried from there the ark of the covenant of Jehovah of armies, who is sitting upon the cherubs." And in a number of other verses is said to be above the cherubs. (Ezekiel 10:1) "was over the head of the cherubs there was something like sapphire stone, like the appearance of the likeness of a throne,"
We will now look at Ron's point about Jesus' blood.
Ron has stated that, at the time of the crucifixion, the blood of Christ "went down through that crack: onto the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant that God had arranged to be hidden in that chamber hundreds of years before Christ died."
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant-07.htm
This of course is not what the Bible states. Jesus didn't offer his blood before the literal Ark, read what Paul wrote.
(Hebrews 9:11-12)n "However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us]."
Jesus when he entered with the value of his blood, entered not the Most Holy of the temple, he entered in what the Most Holy represented, he entered the heavens and stood before what the Ark represented, Jehovah God's presence, and presented the value of his shed human blood to his heavenly Father and redeemed mankind. So Ron is wrong on Jesus offering his blood before the Ark, he would have Jesus offering the literal before the symbolic. Just as we are told that the blood of animals offered before the Ark didn't save, neither would Jesus' blood if it was offered in the same way, it had to be offered before Jehovah, not a gold box.
If Jesus' shed blood had poured on the Ark as Ron claims, he is also saying that this was when Jesus offered his blood to save mankind. The problem here is that the Bible clearly shows that Jesus didn't offer his sacrifice to his father as High priest until Pentecost 40 days later. Jesus' offering his sacrifice before his Father was foreshadowed by the offering of firstfruits of the barley harvest and once that had been done the wheat harvest could start which of course pictured the out pouring of holy spirit and the gathering of the anointed followers of Christ.
Considering the fact that Ron's story of the Ark directly contradicts the Word of God, it is painfully obvious that Ron made the whole thing up, I can see no other explanation. I have also just covered a few of the problems with Ron's story, many of the other details have biblical problems as well, and then there is the lack of supporting evidence to back up his story, like clear pictures etc.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by JimSDA, posted 05-05-2005 9:39 AM JimSDA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 10:36 AM wmscott has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 154 of 307 (205515)
05-06-2005 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Brian
05-03-2005 1:37 PM


How do we Identify 13th century Israelites?
HI Arch,
I realise that you may be busy, and that is not a problem. But just in case you have some free time could you answer this question about the petroglyphs?
I cannot give an answer until I go to the site and carry out my preliminary survey.
What would identify these petroglyphs as 'Israelite', what is it that would conivince you, during your primary survey, that they were drawn by Israelites?
I would appreciate if anyone else could answer this question as well, as it would be very helpful in regard to something I am reasearching.
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Brian, posted 05-03-2005 1:37 PM Brian has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 155 of 307 (205524)
05-06-2005 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by JimSDA
05-03-2005 2:22 PM


Re: The AofC was covered
Hi Jim,
It is a nice story yes, but in terms of historical enquiry, that is all it is, a story.
No historian would entertain the accuracy of Wyatt's claims based on the evidence produced. The evidence is really just hearsay, there is no direct evidence that Wyatt ever found the AofC. He took pictures of it twice, and BOTH just happened to come out 'foggy'. He returned to the spot and everything had disappeared! A little too convenient for my liking. Sorry, but a historian wouldn't give this story the time of day.
BTW, why didn't Ron open a freak show type circus and make a lot of money from his talking hand?
From Here
"Without warning, Ron's left hand pointed to a site being used as a rubbish dump and said, "That's Jeremiah's Grotto and the Ark of the Covenant is in there."
He would have made a fortune out of that talking hand and would have had no need to lie and con decent people out of money!
But, on a serious note. You really shouldn't take our opinions of Ron so seriously. When you think about it, what we think of Ron and his work doesn't really make any difference in the grand scheme of things. I mean, if we think Ron was a liar and a crook does that really affect your life, or does it really mean that he was a liar and a crook?
You just have to accept that different people have different ideas about what constitutes proof. We require solid, tangible evidence that we can examine and decide for ourselves whether it is useful or relevant or not.
I admit that I think Ron was a less than honest person, and I am a little disturbed that some people have picked up on his con and are running with it, they are making money out of people who are extremely gullible.
The one big consolation that I can take form this is that Ron's claims will never appear in any respectable archaeological or historical journal, there just isn't the required evidence there for it to pass any basic enquiry. Ron's work was simply of an extremely poor academic standard, of course he wasn't a trained archaeologist or historian, and this shows in his poorly constructed presentations.
So, relax a little Jim when you are answering posts and calling people liars. Chill out, life is too short to get stressed out over things as trivial as Ron Wyatt's 'research'.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by JimSDA, posted 05-03-2005 2:22 PM JimSDA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 10:08 AM Brian has replied

JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 307 (205549)
05-06-2005 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Brian
05-06-2005 7:07 AM


Re: The AofC was covered
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 . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Brian, posted 05-06-2005 7:07 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Wounded King, posted 05-06-2005 10:17 AM JimSDA has not replied
 Message 158 by Brian, posted 05-06-2005 10:32 AM JimSDA has not replied
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2005 10:34 AM JimSDA has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 157 of 307 (205554)
05-06-2005 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 10:08 AM


Re: The AofC was covered
The way the sentence was written, on the website Brian referenced, that is exactly what it means. It is obvious that that isn't what was meant, but that is what was written.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 10:08 AM JimSDA has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 158 of 307 (205559)
05-06-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 10:08 AM


Re: The AofC was covered
Hi Jim,
The 'talking hand' reference was a joke, and if you read the original site you can see that the way they have written the quote actually does suggest that Ron's hand spoke!!
The very next sentence that I wrote confirmed that I said the 'talking hand' reference 'tongue in cheeek'.
However, I do suggest that you take my other advice and chill a little. I don't see the point in getting upset because others believe differently from you.
Jar, myself, and you, are all coming at this from a different angle. You think that there is good evidence for Ron's claims, Jar think there is no evidence, I think there is evedence but that the evidence available is worthless for an historical enquiry.
Until you realise that both sides of the debate need to understand where the other side is coming from then no progress will be made. I normally agree with Jar on almost everything, but I disgaree with him in regard to the absence of evidence. I think that there is evidence, but what evidence there is, is not of a decent standard, most is nothing other than asking us to take Ron's word for things, but this IS evidence, it is just worthless evidence. I do not find Ron's word enough to make absolute claims about anything.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 10:08 AM JimSDA has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 10:36 AM Brian has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 159 of 307 (205560)
05-06-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 10:08 AM


If you want a serious message to answer...
Try Message 127 (mine) or Message 153 (wmscott).
Both raise serious points that really ought to be addressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 10:08 AM JimSDA has not replied

JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 307 (205562)
05-06-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by wmscott
05-05-2005 6:25 PM


Re: what if I can show you that Ron's 'discovery' is in conflict with the Bible?
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 AM
This message has been edited by JimSDA, 05-06-2005 10:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by wmscott, posted 05-05-2005 6:25 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by wmscott, posted 05-06-2005 6:00 PM JimSDA has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 161 of 307 (205564)
05-06-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Brian
05-06-2005 10:32 AM


Re: The AofC was covered
I could certainly agree with the characterization as "worthless evidence" and will try to remember to use that terminology in the future.
But I also strongly believe I can and have shown that Ron deliberately withheld evidence and altered evidence.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Brian, posted 05-06-2005 10:32 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 10:50 AM jar has replied

JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 307 (205565)
05-06-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
05-06-2005 10:36 AM


Re: The AofC was covered
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 10:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by ramoss, posted 05-06-2005 11:54 AM JimSDA has not replied
 Message 164 by jar, posted 05-06-2005 12:35 PM JimSDA has replied
 Message 165 by PecosGeorge, posted 05-06-2005 1:00 PM JimSDA has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 163 of 307 (205581)
05-06-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 10:50 AM


Re: The AofC was covered
How convient. I find those excuses quite unbelievable. OF course, I find Ron Wyatt's claims unbelievable too, particularly since he does NOT have any kind of objective evidence of his claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 10:50 AM JimSDA has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 164 of 307 (205596)
05-06-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 10:50 AM


Re: The AofC was covered
JimDSA
Did Ron disclose the information about all of the other graffiti on the rock he claims was an altar?
Did Ron disclose that such pictoglyphs are common throughout the area?
Did Ron disclose that such glyphs are dated as being made between 6000-3000BC?
Did Ron disclose that even if you use Biblical chronology, the glyphs were made atleast 1000 years before the Biblical time of the Exodus?
Jim
These are not issues of evidence. They are REQUIREMENTS for evidence. When you present a hypothesis, as a researcher you are obligated to report eveything, those points that support your assertion as well as the evidence that refutes it. Anything less is dishonest and a severe breach of the scientific method and ethics.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 10:50 AM JimSDA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 1:07 PM jar has replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 165 of 307 (205605)
05-06-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by JimSDA
05-06-2005 10:50 AM


Re: The AofC was covered
The ark has/had awesome significance and importance and was treated with total fear and respect, and rightly so. No mistakes were allowed in the handling of it.
You need to provide evidence where the results of touching the ark are no longer the same and why John, the beloved disciple, did not see what he saw when he saw it in heaven. (Rev. 11:19)
Please use scripture for evidence, and give it a go!

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by JimSDA, posted 05-06-2005 10:50 AM JimSDA has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024