quote:PecosGeorge, the same goes for you -- let's hear what all you've managed to get onto national TV!
Show us how "easy" it is!
This really is quite sad stuff - it must be true because it's been on the TV! Has education in the states really sank this low? People are honestly trying to construct an argument based around popular appeal?
Now that TV is Narrowcast, the networks are desperate, truely desperate to fill airtime with anything that may get people to tune in. A decent quackpot story like this is both a)cheap and b)going to get people talking.
quote:Cat House for Dogs," said an ad in the Village Voice, "featuring a savory selection of hot bitches..." Along with this ad, a press release was sent to the media saying that if your dog graduated from obedience school, if it was his birthday, or if he was just horny, for $50 you could get your dog sexually gratified. This was not a breeding service, but purely a sexual pleasure service.
The phone rang off the hook as hundreds of people called to talk to New York's first and only dog pimp. Surprisingly, not only were the calls from bonifide customers willing to pay $50, but there were just as many calls from people who wanted to have sex with dogs or watch dogs have sex with other people. Dog pimp, Skaggs, recorded all of these incoming phone calls.
Anyway let's not forget a more base motive for the people pushing Ron's stuff:
quote:"The use of TV consumer experts is the latest way marketers have tried to disguise their promotions as real news," similar to magazine "'advertorials' designed to look like editorial features" and video news releases aired as TV reports. The stable of paid "experts" includes "Today" show tech-product reviewer Corey Greenberg, "trend and fashion expert" Katlean de Monchy, Popular Photography & Imaging magazine editor John Owens, and Child magazine tech editor James Oppenheim. The Wall Street Journal reports that all four "experts" have neglected to disclose to viewers that they received payments to promote products being discussed. Journal reporter James Bandler writes, "TV shows present these gurus' recommendations as unbiased and based solely on their expertise. But that presentation is misleading if the experts have been paid to mention products." Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2005
I mean... it's not like Ron's chums are trying to flog the evidence in books and DVDs is it?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-May-2005 05:05 PM
Jar, the Bible says that "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise"! 1st Corinthians 1:27
You place great importance upon questioning every little thing, as if that will lead you to the truth about Noah's Ark, etc. -- but if Dr. Ekrem Akurgal can spend two minutes looking at the visual evidence for Noah's Ark and come to the conclusion that it IS a boat, then this shows that you are making all of this far more complicated than it needs to be!
Again, Dr. Akurgal was the leading archaeologist of Turkey --
I am not the leading archaeologist of Turkey however I do have access to some very impressive academic datebases - which conference did he present his findings at? What's the name of the collected proceedings? Which journal is this paper in?
What written statement did he make about this?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-May-2005 05:17 PM
quote:Oh, I see, you just want to be "king of the hill" here on the EvC forums! You have a "big fish in a little pond" fixation, right? Afraid to play in the really BIG ponds . . .
This is really really pisspoor stuff, it's also the standard creationist trick when cornered. He's trying to get us to insult him, so that he can claim that we rude and claim some strange form of moral victory. Can I ask that people don't raise to it and keep hitting the "evidence". The thread will then speak for itself.
quote:I would assume that one angel could take care of things and the others could be doing other things at the same time. I don't have the computer power to understand what angels can do and can't do.
If there's only one on guard do you think the others are off seeing how many of their mates they can cram onto the the head of a pin ?
09/04/05 - Sharks attacked 30/04/05 - Wasps swatted 14/05/05 - More of the same ?
Charles, complain all you wish, but the facts show that Ron was able to share his work in the national media arena -- and YOU HAVEN'T!
Believe it or not, it shows that Ron was willing to engage in serious discussions with the right people -- but as it is will "professionals" in the world today, 99% already have their own agendas and really don't want to be exposed to something new! So the evidence we share just falls on deaf ears.
let's hear what all you've managed to get onto national TV!
Just so you know, dude, the conspiracy theorists somehow got fox to do a 2 hour program on the moon landing thing being fake.
Before you say anything about it, I just want you to know that I have taken a look at every supposed evidence presented by the proponents of the moon landing being fake and I can tell you that anyone with a little bit of understanding in optics can refute just about everyone of them.
Like CK said, tv folks are more interested in how many people they can get to watch their program not if it is a load of crap or not.
Even the history and discovery channels are guilty of this.
both biblically and mechanically, Ron's description of the Ark is impossible
WMScott, are you really sure that you want to say that you have "perfect knowledge" of what God means when He inspired Daniel to write "and anoint the most Holy"? Are you absolutely sure that you can say that you know you're absolutely right? Come on now, you know that you're only human, and no matter how much studying you've done you cannot claim to have absolute perfect understanding of Daniel 9 and what it did or did not mean to "anoint the most HOLY"!
Considering how simple this point is, (Daniel 9:24) "anoint the Holy of Holies." yes. The "Holy of Holies" or "the Most Holy" as the NWT footnote states, is a reference to the Most Holy of the temple; which represented heaven. Do you wish to argue that the phrase "Holy of Holies" doesn't refer to the Most Holy? It is a simple statement! Check the Bible, while the Ark is referred to as being 'holy' it is never called the "Holy of Holies" or "the Most Holy"', the room where the Ark was kept however was called the "Most Holy". (Numbers 3:31) "And their obligation was the Ark and the table and the lampstand and the altars and the utensils of the holy place" (1 Kings 8:6) "Then the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of Jehovah to its place, to the innermost room of the house, the Most Holy,"
So I can say with complete confidence that Daniel 9:24 refers to Heaven being anointed and does not refer to the literal Ark being literally anointed with Christ's blood.
WMScott, do you have access to the SKY ANGEL satellite system?
No. I would suggest that you watch the program yourself and record it, and make a note of the evidence used to support the argument and list the references cited, then post them here on the this board.
Regarding your interpretation about the bodies coming out of the graves, I don't think it agrees with Scripture -- I use the King James, and it clearly says in Matthew 27:52-53 that the sleeping saints arose (they didn't just have their bodies dumped out on the ground, what a gross and disrespectful thing for God to do to them!) and then they "went into the holy city and appeared to many"! These people were the "first fruits" of the resurrection, and in our understanding these people became the "24 elders" when they joined Elijah and Enoch and Moses in heaven. Jesus/Yeshua had just conquered death -- and He didn't want to have to wait 2,000 years to resurrect some of the people He died for! So those first few saints came resurrected out of their graves, they went into Jerusalem and testified about God's Son, and then they went to heaven in their perfect new eternal bodies. Your interpretation of them just being flopped out onto the ground as corpses is far short of what really happened, my friend.
The King James is far from being a perfect translation and has a number of errors. But on this verse, while not the best rendering, it still makes the important distinction at Matthew 27:52 that "many bodies of the saints which slept arose," when the earthquake opened the tombs, it was the bodies that were raised, not the people themselves. (Why many and not all of the 'saints' if it was a resurrection?) They also were not the "first fruits" of the resurrection, Jesus was. (1 Corinthians 15:20-23) "Christ has been raised up from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep [in death]. For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence." (Colossians 1:18) "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things;" (Revelation 1:5) "from Jesus Christ, "the Faithful Witness," "The firstborn from the dead,"
So it is impossible for Matthew 27:52 to be a reference to a resurrection to heavenly life, since it would have proceeded the resurrection of Christ and the Bible is clear that he was the firstfruits or first one that was resurrected to go to heaven. Additionally Jesus didn't offer the firstfruits or himself, until he appeared before his father with the value of his sacrifice, which he didn't do until pentecost which was the festival of the offering of the firstfruits of the harvest which of course pictured Jesus appearing before Jehovah in heaven. That was the reason why the Jews had the law, all these things had prophetic meanings, part of how the law was a tutor leading to Christ. (Galatians 3:24) "Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ," Also notice the last few words at 1 Corinthians 15-23, "afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence" the heavenly resurrection doesn't take place until his presence or durning the second coming.
In regard to your picture of the Ark,
The cherubs were on top of the cover and not attached to at the ends, the Hebrew word "`al" used in Exodus in refence to the cherubs on cover of the Ark. Strong's Number: 5921 Transliterated: `al
Has the meaning of "above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect)" shows that the cherubs were above or over the cover. Even if you want to use the last meaning given of against, even that is still used in "downward aspect" or vertically, so even using that meaning the cherubs were against the top of the cover, not attached to the ends. The Greek word used by Paul at Hebrews 9:4-5 "and the ark of the covenant overlaid all around with gold, in which were the golden jar having the manna and the rod of Aaron that budded and the tablets of the covenant; but up above it were the glorious cherubs overshadowing the propitiatory [cover]."
Text: from 5228 and 507; above upward, i.e. greatly higher (in place or rank): --far above, over.
Clear states also that the cherubs were above the Ark, not on the ends. Biblically it is a open and shut case, the cherubs were on top, Ron Wyatt and Mary Eddy Baker too for that matter, were both wrong, neither of them really saw the Ark. When someone lies, it is the little details that trip them up and expose them, for if they had been telling the truth, they would have gotten the description of the Ark right.
Mechanically having two large 5 foot tall solid gold cherubs attached to each end of a solid pure gold cover is of course impossible. A five foot all figure of a angel or person would weigh over 2,000 lbs or one ton. A five foot person would weigh about 110 pounds and gold with a specific gravity of 19.29 would result in each of the two figures weighing over a ton. We are told that the Cherubs are part of the cover which was made of solid gold, and are hammered figures, you can't hammer a hollow figure so they were of course solid. So a solid five foot tall human figure with wings would be will over a ton, so you would have two one ton plus weigh figures attached to each other by the flat gold cover between them, the stress on the cover would bend it out of shape. Just the weigh of the cherubs hanging off the ends of the cover while on the Ark would bend the cover and the cherubs would bind against the ends of the Ark, making it impossible to remove the cover without destroying the box of the Ark pinched underneath. Even if the cover could be lifted, any unbalance would twist the cover or even tear it apart. And of course four men carrying a Ark with a two ton cover on two wooden pools is clearly impossible.
So both biblically and mechanically, Ron's description of the Ark is impossible. He obviously made the whole thing up, there is no other explanation.