Examining the Claims by Ron Wyatt

As we need to determine whether all the claims made by Ron Wyatt are true or false, we need to examine each and everyone of those claims.

We should search for the truth in regards to whether they are true or not.

The only proper way to do this is to examine the claims he made in his own words, be it in writing or on video. I say video, as I discovered that there are videos of his claims by Ron Wyatt himself on You Tube.

Let the examination begin.

Let us begin by examining his claims regarding the Ark of the Covenant.

Here is a You Tube link that I am in the process of watching:

http://ldolphin.org/wyatt.html

and

I have long believed in Ron Wyatt's claims on the Red Sea Crossing and the location of Mt. Sinai.

But, I have never believed his claims on the Ark of the Covenant and Noah's Ark.

Now, I have long believed that Sodom and the other cities destroyed by God were at or around the Dead Sea, but, that was because of the high salt content and location. It had nothing to do with Ron Wyatt. Although, I do agree with him on that as well, or maybe I should say he agrees with me.

But, this is not much a matter of my faith in God. If it turned out that Sodom was actually in another location, I would be fine with that.

One of his claims is that blood ran down through a crack in the rock onto the lid.

How much blood/water are expected in such a dehydrated person?

Given an assumed position of the exit from Christ's body, what's the maximum amount of blood that could on average be expected to fall into the crack?

What is the maximum amount of depth through dry rock that that amount of blood could flow?

Are not these questions relevant for considering / before considering the possibility of such of his claims?

I need to watch both videos before commenting further.

There is more questions about the blood. How did it survive 2000 years? Was there no rain that would follow the same track through the ground washing the site of the blood? And is there any evidence that any human could live with 24 chromosomes? This is direct against the evidence of the Bible in which Hebrews says he was made just like His brothers. And where is the blood now? Why can no one else test it? This is just one claim. Wyatt was a fraud.

If Jesus had only 24 chromosomes, He did not "come in the flesh".


"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." 1John 4:1-3

Ron Wyatt did not provide any samples, when requested. His only evidence was anecdotal. I believe he was a gifted con man.

It is true that the Noah's Ark Ron Wyatt found had been tried and tested before Ron Wyatt git there. George Vandeman from the SDA Church traveled to Turkey to check this site. He was there when the Turkish authorities blew two holes in it with dynamite.

So, I don't believe Ron Wyatt is a fraud, but, he wasn't as wise a scientist as you would like to have investigating these sites.

Again, I still agree with Ron Wyatt on the Red Sea Crossing and the location of Mt. Sinai. This is the best explanation I have ever heard. The location of the crossing makes the most sense.

So again, I don't believe he was a fraud.

All it would take is a few drops to equal the kind of symbolic imagery presented throughout history of the Levitical services. A mere sprinkling. Therefore, I think any amount greater than a few tablespoons would very likely suffice, depending on the length/absorption of the blood in the crack and/or its humidity. In the case that the blood was mixed with water, as scripture attests, then the water could easily be the source of humidity to a certain extent.



There was an earthquake at the time of Jesus' death. Perhaps an "aftershock" could have resealed the crack later.

Regarding the chromosome count, as a biologist, I would have to say it doesn't matter to me one iota. Gorillas, chimpanzees, mice and hares can all have 48 chromosomes, and live just fine. A carp is said to have 104 chromosomes, and seems much simpler in nature when compared to humans. Bears have 74 chromosomes, and yet we, with a mere 46, get along just fine. Koala bears and kangaroos have 16 chromosomes, but the much-smaller snail has 24. You see, chromosome count has virtually nothing to do with gene count. It's the genes that mean the most, genetically (no pun intended). A chromosome can vary widely in the amount of information it carries.

I see no problem with Jesus having had 24 chromosomes. However, I see no proof of it either. And, as a biologist again, if someone is claiming to have counted 24 chromosomes from a sample of Jesus' blood, they simply show themselves to be ignorant. Red blood cells are non-nucleated in humans, meaning they have ZERO chromosomes.



Obviously, non-nucleated blood cells don't divide, either. Someone was not a biologist. Blood cells are manufactured in the bone marrow, the only place they can divide. Before they leave the marrow, their nucleus gets ejected so that they have a more compact form and are able to carry a greater amount of oxygen, having more surface area per volume. Birds, with hollow, no-marrow, lightweight bones, have nucleated blood cells that do divide in the bloodstream. Humans are not birds.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

WOW!

After watching that video with Danny Shelton and Colin Standish, I am very shocked that anyone could lie like that at the expense of God's earthly sanctuary. I hope God can still have mercy on Ron Wyatt's soul!

I never knew about this experience between Ron Wyatt and 3ABN. Extremely deceptive!

Is it not written that God said, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge"?

That anyone would go looking for the ark of the covenant or speak of the Messiah's blood falling through cracks and wanting $10,000 to pursue the idea shows COMPLETE IGNORANCE about the Messianic Atonement. What is worse is that SDA, who should know so much better than anyone, would fall for such a BLATANT scam!

Heb. 9 says, "Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary ..." a thing which prefigured something greater. "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation ..."

There are times when I feel like hitting SDA in the head! How could you be so fundamentally stupid and ignorantly foolish? Do the prophecies not mean anything to you at all that you suddenly forget about them and run after those who shout lies? How could you speak of yourself as "the elect" when you are so easily deceived?

///

As a biologist green, have you seen ANY organism that had a haploid number of chromosomes plus one? You still have to have cell division, as a biologist can a haploid number plus one do this? Have you ever seen it? No, you have not, if you are a biologist. And was Christ made like His brothers? YES, with the SEED of Abraham, that is DNA. NO, 24 chromosomes, 23+1, will not work. You have NO EVIDENCE that it can work, and we have NO EVIDENCE that Christ had such blood, and it is contrary to the Bible.

As for doing DNA studies on blood, it is true that RBCs do not have a nucleus, but there are other cells in the blood that do. But we still have NO EVIDENCE that that Wyatt found any blood at all.

Yes, many. It is common among some organisms. I'm a beekeeper, for one, and bee queens actually choose whether or not to fertilize their eggs using a male sperm which they have stored. A fertilized egg becomes female. A non-fertilized one (haploid) becomes a drone.

Other notable examples, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Organism	Picture	Scientific name	Diploid number of chromosomes (2n = x), except as noted	Notes
Echidna			63/64	63 (X1Y1X2Y2X3Y3X4Y4X5, male) and 64 (X1X1X2X2X3X3X4X4X5X5, female)[27]
Raccoon dog		Nyctereutes procyonoides	42	some sources say sub-species differ with 38, 54, and even 56 chromosomes
European honey bee		Apis mellifera	32	32 for females, males are haploid and thus have 16.
Swamp wallaby		Wallabia bicolor	10/11	11 for male, 10 for female[54]
Nematode		Caenorhabditis elegans	12/11	12 for hermaphrodites, 11 for males
Indian muntjac		Muntiacus muntjak	06/7 !6/7[56]	female/male
Spider mite			04 !4–14[58]	Spider mites (family Tetranychidae) are typically haplodiploidy (males are haploid, while females are diploid)[58]
Jack jumper ant		Myrmecia pilosula	02 !2[60]	2 for females, males are haploid and thus have 1; smallest number possible. Other ant species have more chromosomes.[60]

Note, in particular, the swamp wallaby.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, is the swamp Wallaby haploid? No.

Again, the idea the Christian was haploid is contrary to scripture. Read Hebrews.

Yes, bees can be haploid.

APL,

The fact is, many animals ARE haploid. It's not a problem, apparently. Christ, the Creator of all, could certainly have added a single chromosome to that which He was to inherit from Mary to supply anything at all that He needed. There is nothing in the Bible to speak of His DNA. DNA, you recall, does not equal "flesh" nor "blood" (red blood cells don't even have any chromosomes in them, as you've acknowledged).

To me, this entire DNA issue is not worthy of debating. For those who presume to know more about how God could have come in the flesh with respect to the DNA which He Himself invented than God Himself has chosen to reveal, I have nothing more to say. What God makes no issue of, I make no issue of. God is all-powerful, and all-wise. He could have somehow had but a single chromosome, or none at all, so far as I am concerned, and it would make no difference to the plan of salvation, nor to His human flesh. I see no necessity for Jesus to have begun as a haploid sperm to impregnate Mary--in fact, as I see it, the Bible teaches that Jesus came to this world at His birth, not at conception.

It would honestly make no difference to my high respect for Jesus if I were to learn that He had not adopted a single chromosome from Mary, but had rather come with His own genetic material. I choose to believe, as I am told, that He was fully human and fully divine at the same time--at that suffices. The "divine" part is the key. It's an obvious addition to the base framework that could have been made in an infinity of "divine" ways beyond our ken.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree, all it would take is a few drops on the lid. That's why my question was about how much would it take to accomplish that.

So, I'm confused by your response. It's like you didn't read my question. "depending on the length/absorption of the blood in the crack". Yes, that was what my question was about.

Mixed with water? Where did that water come from? From out of the blood. Thereby making the blood less fluid. More sticky.

Were you addressing any of my questions?

I think APL had a good point I hadn't thought of! But you suggest resealing a crack in the rock.
To be water proof.
By an earthquake.

Really?

Huh? Did you read APL's question? Or is it you just don't understand his question? Or not understand chromosomes?

Maybe not a genetic type of "biologist"?


Ah! And someone must have pointed that out to Wyatt, hence his double stepping. Glad you at least see that.

Green, was that talking about what APL was? Was that addressing what he was saying? What is it you don't understand about his question?

Why? Why any chromosome? Why only one?

Does "flesh" and "blood" mean human? Would 24 chromosomes be human?

"as you've acknowledged)" You act like APL is promoting this.


I couldn't find any mention about chromosomes on Echidna nor on the swamp wallaby. "courtesy of Wikipedia". Really?

But Wyatt the fraud seems to think it worthy of debating.

Wait. Wait. You said yourself "as you've acknowledged)" there are no chromosomes in red blood cells. So do you acknowledge Wyatt is a fraud? Did you miss the point of the thread?

kland,

I'm not addressing Wyatt. I'm addressing his claims and the possible merit or non-merit of them. I have no special respect for the man, and am not defending him. But the man himself is not what I was addressing, but rather the "facts" of the case.

As for wikipedia, you may need to search from yahoo.com instead of from Google next time (at least that's how I arrived at the page). You may find it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count


You stopped short of reading the rest of what I said that should have clarified things a bit. Instead of making this thread be about me, perhaps you could focus on the issues.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes! You defend the idea of Wyatt that Christ's blood could be haploid. The list in wikipedia list no mammal with haploid chromosome count. Even Down's Syndrome is duploid with some variation in the duplication of chromosome 21. This is called anaploidy, the wrong number, and how did that work out? Not good. Something to think about, the human brain contains anywhere from 30-60% anaploidy, but I digress.Except for all the scripture which talks about the genetics which you choose to ignore, and Wyatt just creates stories about. Again, you ignore that truth that Christ came to condemn, "sin in the flesh", Romans 8:3. And you ignore what Paul talks about in his flesh. Can ANY human have no chromosomes? No. What Christ made like His brothers? YES! Hebrews 2:17!! And note if he was not, then He could not be hour highpriest. Hebrews 2:17 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Yes, I know your believe that a Baby is not a real person until it is born and breaths ignoring the fact that even a baby's cells engage in respiration obtaining oxygen from the mother. This also gives you justification for abortion. Wyatt was wrong about the chromosome count. Apparently others are also.

Again, scripture speaks of Christ being made of a woman, under the law. But lets say that Mary was just a surrogate, and none of her DNA was in the zygote that became Christ, His entire genome would have become infected with mobile genetic elements by the time of His birth. But you are a biologist green, you know this, right?You ignore the SOP writing such as "The human nature of Christ was like unto ours. "

The "divine" part is the key? Hmmm.. The Catholic doctrine of the human nature of Christ is simply that that nature is not human nature at all, but divine. It is that in His human nature Christ was so far separated from mankind as to be utterly unlike mankind. No. the human nature of Christ combined with the divine is key. It was our flesh He took. Wyatt fabricated a story he though credible. It was incredible.

I don't know if it was Wyatt's idea. He may have promoted it, certainly. But I am not smarter than God, nor unscientific enough to say I can prove the non-existence of such a possibility.



The nearest we get to genetics in the Bible has to do with "kinds" and "seeds" such as we see in Genesis 1-3. There's no mention of DNA, ploidy, or any other such detail. As I've said, God is not limited by what we see as possibilities. He has a thousand ways of which we are not aware.


APL, are you God? Was Jesus God or not? If Jesus was 100% God and 100% human, how was He 100% like you and me who are NOT 100% God? Your mathematical logic does not add up with me. It's impossible that He was exactly like us. For one thing, He was NOT a sinner--we are. So He wasn't just like me--and you know what? I am very glad about it!!!

When the Bible says He was "in all things" made like us, you take it to be His DNA? I take it to be His circumstances. He ate as we ate. He lived as we live. He obeyed God as we must. In all such things He was made exactly like us. He was not made a sinner like me--that would not have been a thing, but rather a state of being. He was never 100% like us in terms of His state of being.



Your misrepresentation of my view shows you haven't taken time to understand it yet. When you are careful to first understand it, we might discuss it further--in a different thread.



I'm a biologist, APL, so I know that donkeys don't talk, milch kine don't leave their calves behind, rivers don't just stop flowing, the sun doesn't stand still in the sky, nor does the moon, the unbroken colt doesn't just let a man sit on it without some rebellious bucking, fish don't find nets cast on the wrong side of the boat to be irresistably magnetic, and sticks don't turn into snakes, nor do dry staves bear almond flowers and fruits--yet God, who made the "rules" is powerful enough to make exceptions to them anytime He chooses to. I'm a biologist who has learned from the study of biology just how powerful God is. I respect that power far too much to put God in a box and to say something that He is in charge of, and not me, cannot be done.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Note to Green - there are many more reference to heredity in the Bible. And we know that Christ came to share our heredity, unless you discount the SOP. Hard to match your cryto-logic that West Point so badly wanted you. But what does SCRIPTURE say, it is written, Hebrews 2:17 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

But then crypto-logic may say "like" mean "unlike".

Being made like his brother means made like his brothers. And Hebrews 2:14 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; To me, same means same. Is our flesh made up of DNA and other things? Yep. He was too. And did not have DNA? Fine. You have made a big deal that a baby must have breath... You did say, And this is contrary to scripture as we know John the Baptist in utero responded to Christ in utero, but you say He Christ had not come to this world. Cryto-Logic?And yet, the Bible says Christ was made like His brothers. His brothers had a full complement of DNA. Wyatt concocked a story which he has provided no proof. God does not annul His laws. He does not work contrary to them.

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}

Christ shared our heredity, not half+1 of it as Wyatt claims.

Jesus was made in likeness of sinful flesh, with all the fallen tendencies, but He overcame the fallen nature of his lineage. He never sinned or had a thought to sin only because of His character which was perfect from eternity.

Jesus came with the covering of a spotless character, overcoming temptation, making it possible through faith in Him to overcome our fallen positions. For it is impossible for an unclean thing to make itself clean.

He was fully man in fallen imperfect flesh, but without spot.

What Mr Wyatt did was discover something that is unfathomable, and he attempted to understand it in a short amount of time when we will think on these things for eternity, and still it will be a mystery even in perfect minds, and you think these things are proof that he was not who he claimed to be? A fraud?

When a man walks into a cave and comes out with evidence that he didn't walk into the cave with, why deny that he walked into the cave? Others were there but only those who were pure of heart were permitted to even be around the event. Then, through disbelief they separated themselves one by one mainly from the pressure that other people placed on them. But Ronny died with these words on his lips. If he was a fraud even the most hardcore liars repent before death if they know ANYTHING about God. Even his sons were fully convicted that he was who he claimed to be to their dying days. Lets see you do that holding on to a lie?

Ron Wyatt said, when the Sunday law comes then we will see the tablets of stone as evidence, ***** STAFF EDIT *****

Brother Ron brought and tested blood samples that had elements that prove it was not from two earthly parents. That's all the evidence I needed. Most of you act like his judge ***** STAFF EDIT *****

Those who have a "wait and see" attitude are much better off than anyone arguing against Ron as a Christian. ***** STAFF EDIT *****

Yeah? Where is the evidence? As EGW says, "God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence." Ronny's word is insufficient evidence. See: http://www.ldolphin.org/wyatt1.html I know this man for over half of my life. I'll quote a few paragraphs for those who do not want to click the link describing a Middle East trip with Wyatt and the delusion under which he lived. He says that Wyatt was NOT a fraud! Perhaps only mentally ill. Brandstater is always diplomatic in his works, No ***** STAFF EDIT ***** for him. And yet he thoroughly reveals that Wyatt could not produce any real evidence and that he was a fake.

Our team proceeded to the Garden Tomb, whose custodians were expecting our arrival. Wyatt had negotiated cordially and successfully with them. With an assortment of gardening tools we set to work, moving a large pile of rubble and rock which had accumulated where Wyatt had probed earlier. Over several days we were able to excavate our way down into the same cave system that Wyatt had explored two years before. I'm sorry to report that in the end we came up empty-handed. The connecting channel through which Wyatt had claimed to see the furniture was not there. On the final day of excavation, when we could not see the internal cavern landmarks that Wyatt had predicted, Ron himself finally climbed down into the dim space. After a long time he emerged, looking confused. As we waited respectfully to hear his report, he mumbled a few words like: "It's not the same; it's changed. It's not the way I remember it." There was no opening to be seen, giving a view into an adjacent cavern. There was nothing. In the process of our digging we had come up with a few interesting little objects from Roman times, but they were irrelevant to our main goal.

Our team was disappointed, puzzled, disillusioned. We had enjoyed ten days of close fellowship, with daily shared prayer times, and an excited anticipation of momentous events just before us. Now all those hopes came crashing down. And sadly, Wyatt was not man enough to come clean, to apologize for bringing us on a wild goose chase, or to attempt any kind of explanation. We kept expecting some sort of statement, but he just remained silent, withdrawn. And we were too stunned, and perhaps too sorry for him in his confusion, to demand that he explain.

To this day I cannot give a rational account for the extreme misguidedness that Wyatt revealed. What was happening in his head? His participation in our group worship times had left all of us in no doubt about his sincerity and his devotion to Scripture. He was a competent Bible scholar. He was a brother. Yet he had misled us terribly, and had offered no words of regret or apology or explanation. I have reviewed the whole story many times since then, and am convinced that the church administrator was right: Wyatt might be mistaken, but he himself believed that what he had originally shared was true.

From medical school I remember hearing of a rare state of mind, with a long Latin name, that led its victims to concoct marvelously detailed accounts of events that were pure fabrications, yet which the story-teller himself had come to believe were absolutely true. I am inclined to believe that Wyatt was a florid example of this disorder. He was not a deliberate liar, a fraud. And some of his observations had merit. But I am convinced that some of his "discoveries" were matters which underwent transcription in his mind, and he came to believe as true certain ideas and observations that in fact were his own inventions.

This opinion became confirmed in my mind some time after the Jerusalem expedition. Wyatt was trying to convince everyone of the validity of his site for Noah's Ark. And in trying to convince me, he described some extraordinary details of the rock-and-earth formation that he believed gives us an outline of the Ark. He told me of probing with a tool into the earthen mound, and breaking into a cavity in which he could see--actually see--the remains of corroded metal "brackets" that he presumed were part of the Ark's construction. This description caught my attention--all of it. If Wyatt's report was factual, then we should get serious about his site for the Ark. But was Wyatt a trustworthy observer and reporter? Months later I followed up on this story, referring to my long-time friend John Baumgardner, who had personally visited Wyatt's Ark site, and had subjected the whole area to minute scrutiny, including a survey with penetrating radar. When I described to John the eyewitness report of Wyatt, he simply laughed and dismissed the whole thing. He assured me, beyond any doubt, that the Ark site under study revealed no cavitation as described by Wyatt, and that the description given to me was entirely a fabrication.

So there you have it. I am a long-time member of the S.D.A. fraternity, and have a high regard for Scripture and for handling its text in a responsible way. I am embarrassed that Wyatt, who identified himself with my community of faith, should turn out to be an unreliable witness to important archaeological data. I cannot put any confidence in his opinions, his assertions, or his declared eyewitness reports. Yet the man I knew, now at rest, was truly a man of The Word. He knew his Bible, and I heard him give impressive expositions of some difficult passages. In full verbal flight he could be eloquent. I expect his Bible study class was a good one. Yet he was sadly flawed. From close personal acquaintance, I cling to the belief that he was sincere, at the same time as he was woefully mistaken. It was through some quirk of mental dysfunction that he came himself to believe as true certain facts and stories that were his own inventions.

I must add one further cautionary note. Wyatt was a persuasive talker, and succeeded in firing the imaginations of many good people in church pews. But I do not know of any S.D.A. scholar who has given him serious favorable attention. He is an embarrassment to them. I have had some correspondence with Jim Pinkoski,* who was an ardent supporter. I have had no contact with Jonathan Gray; my friends and colleagues in Australia describe him as a publicity man, perhaps devoted as much to profit as to truth. Wyatt's claims have been reviewed and critiqued exhaustively by Drs.Colin and Russell Standish, who published a book on these matters, and also by Dr. David Pennington. These critics are in Australia; they all conclude that his claims and conclusions are in serious error.

Now you can understand why I have laid aside the claims of Ron Wyatt, and only speak my views when a respected colleague turns up with a curious interest. I feel an obligation to help people hear a balanced first-hand report. At the same time I remain grateful to this extraordinary but flawed fellow-pilgrim for opening for me a door into some memorable adventures.

In the name of Jesus APL are you the one claiming to have known Ron Wyatt half your life. I adjure you in the name of Jesus to answer very carefully. Angels are recording your every move here.

I would like to draw peoples attention to some very important points in that so called testimony. Since you APL have made statements against someone you claim to have known half your life (If that is not the case then you intentionally structured the sentence to make it look like you were saying this because that sentence is not in the quote).... This is what you get. Bear false witness, get the wrath. In that article it is stated by Dr Brandstater...

#1; I had first met him (Ron), many months before, in the Hotel Ararat in Dogubeyazit, at the foot of Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey. The hotel's humble foyer was buzzing with the comings and goings of men hunting for Noah's Ark. Amongst them all, Wyatt stood out, a tall impressive bearded figure, striding around with great self-assurance."

"The hotel was BUZZING with the Comings and goings of men hunting for Noah's ark"? Why? BECAUSE RON HAD SHOWED THE SITE TO THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT AND THEY BELIEVED HIM BECAUSE OF THE PROOF! They built a million dollar road and visitor center around that site because of the PROOF, and this is the ONLY reason Bernard Brandstater was there, he was STALKING RON after hearing of the discovery like every other blood sucker that "mysteriously" showed up there that summer. I would love to hear Dr Brandsteter defend that. Ron HAD found the site, they weren't LOOKING any more, they found it! It wasn't like there were a hundred different groups of people BUZZING that tiny little hotel to look elsewhere, they were all there because of Ron. That's why the DR showed up in TURKEY! Then Ron took him under his wing and showed him everything and the ingrate turned on him because God wouldn't permit that unfaithful Judas to see the Ark.

#2 "Our team proceeded to the Garden Tomb, whose custodians were expecting our arrival. Wyatt had negotiated cordially and successfully with them."

How many of you fraud claimers say Ron never got ANY permit to dig IN THE GARDEN TOMB AREA? But here Bernard Brandstater is testifying that Ron had not only been given permission but that this was one of the several times he had already dug there. This one piece of evidence proves most of those who deny his claims are liars. So according to the antiquity officers in Israel, Mr Brandstater is a liar because they claim they never issued ANY permits or permitted him to dig in any case! (One of the biggest points he argues publicly about in the WIKI page he started)

#3; "With an assortment of gardening tools we set to work, moving a large pile of rubble and rock which had accumulated where Wyatt had probed earlier. Over several days we were able to excavate our way down into the same cave system that Wyatt had explored two years before... then he says "We had enjoyed ten days of close fellowship"

In TEN DAYS USING GARDENING TOOLS they dug down 30 feet then buried the site again (which was demanded by the Israeli antiquity officers) ??? He keeps saying "OUR TEAM" when it was him and Ron and his son. EVEN IF THEY DUG FOR A MONTH they couldn't do that. WITH GARDENING TOOLS hahahahahahaha. That's too funny.

#3 "It had been hidden there, he said, by the priests during the Babylonian siege in 586 BC. As he told it, it was a gripping story, and somewhat believable to someone with a romantic bent. It wasn't hard to imagine the senior Levites, foreseeing the imminent collapse of Jerusalem's defenses, plotting to hide the precious furnishings, during midnight darkness, in a secret cavern in the no-man's land outside the city walls. Wyatt not only constructed this story... I am a long-time member of the S.D.A. fraternity."

So as a long time member of the SDA "FRATERNITY" Mr Brandstater should believe the Spirit of Prophecy eh?

Ellen White wrote...

"Before the temple was destroyed, God made known to a few of His faithful servants the fate of the temple, which was the pride of Israel, and which they regarded with idolatry, while they were sinning against God. He also revealed to them the captivity of Israel. These righteous men, just before the destruction of the temple, removed the sacred ark containing the tables of stone, and with mourning and sadness, secreted it in a cave where it was to be hid from the people of Israel, because of their sins, and was to be no more restored to them. That sacred ark is yet hid. It has never been disturbed since it was secreted."--4SG 114, 115 (1864);1SP 414 (1870); SR 195.

That was in 1864 that she wrote this and if Mr Brandstater really is a Seventh Day Adventist (Works at Loma Linda University) and as "close acquaintance" with Ron as he claimed he should have known this quote existed, because Ron used to quote it ALL THE TIME. So who is right? GOD and His Spirit given through Mrs White or Mr Brandstater? As Seventh Day Adventists you should be able to answer that question, if you really are an Adventist.

#4: "Many months later Wyatt suddenly turned up in my town, Redlands. He phoned me and I invited him for an update chat."

After Mr Brandstater stalked Ron all the way to Turkey he has the nerve to claim this? Mr Brandstater had a man crush on Ron as you should be able to tell by his earlier statement "Amongst them all, Wyatt stood out, a tall impressive bearded figure, striding around with great self-assurance." Or does anyone really think that Mr Brandstater just happened to show up in Turkey during one of Ron's visits there? The man is a glory hound and that is why he stalked Ron all the way to Turkey.

#5 "it was a gripping story, and somewhat believable to someone with a romantic bent." "What could I say to an invitation like this? Was this serious archeology, or was it an Indiana Jones adventure?"

In HIS MIND maybe, but that was not what motivated Ron Wyatt.

This idiot even gets into arguments with Wikipedia about these issues... This is posted on the WIKI page he started to berate Ron after his death...

"Why hasn't the wiki-Editors (one of which is also editor of the anti-creationist website Talkorigins.org) continued to put forth an unsubstantiated view that Ron Wyatt was a nurse-anesthetist in Nashville in 1960, even after this post was listed? And further, if Wiki cannot substantiate the fact with documentation that he was a nurse-anesthetist in 1960, why do they continue to allow that to go into print? Why is this article written like an anti-Wyatt tractate? 99.170.65.102 07:53, 21 April 2008"

Then in the article you quoted APL after one paragraph of what happened in Israel when Ron brought him there and he wasn't permitted to see the Ark, he starts a rant about how Ron was mentally ill.

God would not let this man anywhere near the ARK because HE (LIKE DANNY SHELTON) was not of the right mind. GOD sees the heart, Ron could not, so when he would bring someone God did not want there he would make it impossible to find the access.

If you knew anything about this situation you would hold your tongue APL, but it amazes me how people like you are willing to attack what you don't know.

EVERY TIME Ron brought others who were not of pure heart God would not open the path, it looked like a solid rock surface or the cave direction would change. Israeli records prove that 6 men died trying to recover the ark claiming to be of the tribe of Levi which is IMPOSSIBLE to claim. RON WAS AMAZED that they had found the entrance because NO ONE ELSE had been permitted in. "...secreted it in a cave where it was to be hid from the people of Israel, because of their sins, and was to be no more restored to them.

Those men who insisted on moving it, THEY DIED, get it? Do you want that result for yourself? Are you so bold as to reach out and attempt to steady the Ark without God telling you to? WOW! Sounds a lot like UZZAH! and seeing the result of that mans testimony I can see why he was not permitted in.

In this article; http://wyattmuseum.com/first-century-jer...0991#more-10991

Richard Rives and Wayne Farris got permission to dig and guess what they found?

"IN 2005 subsurface excavations resulted in the preliminary documentation of the crucifixion site as described by Ron Wyatt. In addition we were able to gain new insight as to the surrounding buildings and the cistern with its plastered walls." (EXACTLY AS RON CLAIMED)

"Those excavations were extremely dangerous. After consulting with safety engineers from the Israel Antiquities Authority it was determined that the only reasonable way to continue was to remove the material that had been deposited over thousands of years – an excavation requiring the removal of as much as twelve thousand cubic feet of debris – the equivalent of forty dump truck loads."

But Dr Brandstater says they dug it out and put it back in ten days? HAHAHAHAHA hahahahahahaha. ROTFL.

These men weren't permitted either because they also have their own motivations, but they haven't gone as far as you to try to discredit the man.

God led Ron so the faithful will know when the tablets come to light. It's in God's time but you will not like what is about to happen to you APL and every other person willing to lie in the name of Jesus.

In this article; http://wyattmuseum.com/first-century-jer...0991#more-10991

Richard Rives and Wayne Farris got permission to dig and guess what they found?

"IN 2005 subsurface excavations resulted in the preliminary documentation of the crucifixion site as described by Ron Wyatt. In addition we were able to gain new insight as to the surrounding buildings and the cistern with its plastered walls." (EXACTLY AS RON CLAIMED)

"Those excavations were extremely dangerous. After consulting with safety engineers from the Israel Antiquities Authority it was determined that the only reasonable way to continue was to remove the material that had been deposited over thousands of years – an excavation requiring the removal of as much as twelve thousand cubic feet of debris – the equivalent of forty dump truck loads."

But Dr Brandstater says they dug it out and put it back in ten days with gardening tools? HAHAHAHAHA hahahahahahaha. ROTFL.

These men weren't permitted either because they also have their own motivations, but they haven't gone as far as you to try to discredit the man.

God led Ron so the faithful will know when the tablets come to light. It's in God's time but you will not like what is about to happen to you APL and every other person willing to lie in the name of Jesus.

I have read some of his 'discoveries' and I personally feel he means well but tries to tie them to Biblical claims whether they really are what he claims. Need to wait for others to examine them and give feedback whether positive or not.

Note to APL: Green didn't dispute the existence of other references. Furthermore, "heredity" is a loaded word that often has little to do with DNA. For your benefit, let me point out that "often" does not mean "always." (I know how you like to jump sometimes to less-than-obvious conclusions, so just helping you out here. In other words, you can correctly infer that I am allowing "heredity" to relate to DNA in some cases...well, now that I've made it explicitly clear, no inference is necessary on your part. That must be awesome, right?)



Jesus wasn't a sinner. Sinner and sinless are as opposite as east versus west. Yes, you may infer that I mean "unlike."


How did you infer that I might have said that?

At this point, we see a need to re-read the pertinent passage of scripture to see if what APL alleges is based in any provable facts.



What we see here is that the Bible makes no mention of the babe leaping at the presence of Jesus, but rather at the presence of His mother-to-be, i.e. Mary. John leaped at the presence and voice of whom? That of Mary.



"His brothers" also had sin. They also had different DNA than He had, presumably. For sure, women did. Are they somehow inferior because they are "sisters" and not "brothers"? I thought you were more egalitarian than this. You see, you cannot have a Christ who is EXACTLY like any one of us, and it is even less possible, via DNA, to make Him be like all of us collectively. I would think a high school biology student would have learned sufficient to recognize such pragmatism.



Mrs. White does not say that Jesus' heredity involved DNA. Nor can you prove that is what she meant. What is heredity? Why do so many arguments these days revolve around misunderstandings of the foundational definitions of words? Satan is really going places with word meanings, and none of it is good. Words are used to mean what they were never intended to mean, so that old truths are lost and new errors are introduced into men's thinking.

Sigh. Back to definitions.


That is the FULL definition of the word from Webster's Dictionary in Ellen White's day. Not a single one of those definitions directly addresses DNA. The closest it comes to DNA is the "diseases." But Mrs. White tells us Jesus was never sick. Pride would have been a sin, so Jesus never had that either. What did He have? He had our weakened, mortal body. We simply cannot be so arrogant as to presume to know the makeup of His divinity + humanity, especially as pertains to His DNA for which there is only silence in Scripture.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You are too funny. Did Christ inherit our nature in probate court?to which Green asks:Very simple Green, from this!None at all? Really?OK - fine. But who leaped? Elizabeth? NO! John the Baptist who was not even born yet!!! So your point still fails. And I doubt many here will be fooled by the supposition that it was Mary that John leaped for joy but for the Christ who was already in her womb. Christ was also "made to be sin", however He never participated in sin tis true! "different" in the actual particals of matter, sure. But it is not the particular parts of matter that is important, it is the pattern in which they are constructed. He was MADE like His brothers. The creation of Adam and Eve is important to understand and surely you as a biologist do understand, that Eve could only be taken from Adam and not the other way around. ALL of Eve's DNA was in Adam. What does that say about Christ and all of mankind? Yes, I think your understanding of "heredity" is helping Satan's cause. Christ did not inherit from probate court. And yes, the character of the parents is inherited and guess what, it is in the DNA? HOW? Hint to green: Epigenetics. It is written: Matthew 8:17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases. Would that body be like Adam's before the fall, or as a child Adam deteriorated by sin? Silent in that you do not want to hear or see?

Ignorance of DNA can let people like Wyatt make wild claims and then believe him...

Wow, isn't that a switch-a-roo. Probably to avoid answering the other questions, no? You know, the "facts" of the case? Or at least the "case" you are making about haploids?

Um.... What made you think I used Google?

Is what you're really saying, "next time search for yourself instead of using the link I gave you"?

Green, I wasn't discussing whether I could find the chromosomes of animals but rather the "facts" that the link you gave did not tell what you pretended it to tell.

So why did you suggest the possibility?

He made things up. Without even think through them. Then he tried to double step to cover up his past mistakes.

And should the evidence be shown to others, or should others "just believe" he saw it?

Maybe some. Probably not most. Why do you think otherwise?

Not provable today, is it?

What makes you think so?


If you answer nothing else, what makes you think "Brother Ron brought and tested blood samples"?

• Nobody "has" sin. Sin is transgression. It has nothing to do with your physical body (DNA or otherwise), but with the state of your mind because of your own decisions. Jesus said, "Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." (Mat. 15:10-11)
  
  
• As a consequence, it is superfluous to say that Jesus had "our weakened, mortal body" as if it were of any consequence. It is NOT the body, but the mind that speaks about a man. In the beginning, Adam was physically perfect, yet he fell BECAUSE OF THE DESIRE OF HIS HEART (i.e. his mind). On the other hand, Jesus, broken, bruised, bloody and weak did not cast away his faith but said, "Father, into your hand, I commend my spirit." To the end, contrariwise as it were, HE WAS FAITHFUL.
  
  
• Concerning Jesus' DNA, is it not sufficient to say that God provided Him with the DNA to make Him fully humanly masculine? Look at the conversation between Gabriel and Mary; and be humble:
  
  
  Originally Posted By: Luke 1:34-38

  Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"
  
  And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible."
  
  Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

Amen.

///

You misuse and abuse the truth and make your own doctrines. How sad for you.

"The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words “flesh” or “fleshly” or “carnal lusts” embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul. The love of God must reign supreme; Christ must occupy an undivided throne. Our bodies are to be regarded as His purchased possession. The members of the body are to become the instruments of righteousness.19 {AH 127.2}

"He has borne our sins in His own body on the tree; and through the power He has given us, we may resist the world, the flesh, and the devil. {MYP 105.1}

"The humanity of Christ is called “that holy thing.” The inspired record says of Christ, “He did no sin,” he “knew no sin,” and “in him was no sin.” He was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” He tabernacled among men. This testimony concerning Christ plainly shows that he condemned sin in the flesh. No man can say that he is hopelessly subject to the bondage of sin and Satan. Christ has assumed the responsibilities of the human race, and the sins of all that believe are charged to him. He has engaged to be liable for them. He obeyed every jot and tittle of the law, to testify before unfallen worlds, before holy angels, before the fallen world, that those who believe in him, who accept of him as their sin-offering, who rely upon him as their personal Saviour, will be advantaged by his righteousness, and become partakers of his divine nature. He testifies that through his imputed righteousness the believing soul shall obey the commandments of God. {ST January 16, 1896, par. 7}

Since this wasn't posted until over two days after I wrote it and APL didn't respond, this is being re-posted.

In the name of Jesus APL are you the one claiming to have known Ron Wyatt half your life. I adjure you in the name of Jesus to answer very carefully. Angels are recording your every move here.

I would like to draw peoples attention to some very important points in that so called testimony. Since you APL have made statements against someone you claim to have known half your life (If that is not the case then you intentionally structured the sentence to make it look like you were saying this because that sentence is not in the quote).... This is what you get. Bear false witness, get the wrath. In that article it is stated by Dr Brandstater...

#1; I had first met him (Ron), many months before, in the Hotel Ararat in Dogubeyazit, at the foot of Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey. The hotel's humble foyer was buzzing with the comings and goings of men hunting for Noah's Ark. Amongst them all, Wyatt stood out, a tall impressive bearded figure, striding around with great self-assurance."

"The hotel was BUZZING with the Comings and goings of men hunting for Noah's ark"? Why? BECAUSE RON HAD SHOWED THE SITE TO THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT AND THEY BELIEVED HIM BECAUSE OF THE PROOF! They built a million dollar road and visitor center around that site because of the PROOF, and this is the ONLY reason Bernard Brandstater was there, he was STALKING RON after hearing of the discovery like every other blood sucker that "mysteriously" showed up there that summer. I would love to hear Dr Brandsteter defend that. Ron HAD found the site, they weren't LOOKING any more, they found it! It wasn't like there were a hundred different groups of people BUZZING that tiny little hotel to look elsewhere, they were all there because of Ron. That's why the DR showed up in TURKEY! Then Ron took him under his wing and showed him everything and the ingrate turned on him because God wouldn't permit that unfaithful Judas to see the Ark.

#2 "Our team proceeded to the Garden Tomb, whose custodians were expecting our arrival. Wyatt had negotiated cordially and successfully with them."

How many of you fraud claimers say Ron never got ANY permit to dig IN THE GARDEN TOMB AREA? But here Bernard Brandstater is testifying that Ron had not only been given permission but that this was one of the several times he had already dug there. This one piece of evidence proves most of those who deny his claims are liars. So according to the antiquity officers in Israel, Mr Brandstater is a liar because they claim they never issued ANY permits or permitted him to dig in any case! (One of the biggest points he argues publicly about in the WIKI page he started)

#3; "With an assortment of gardening tools we set to work, moving a large pile of rubble and rock which had accumulated where Wyatt had probed earlier. Over several days we were able to excavate our way down into the same cave system that Wyatt had explored two years before... then he says "We had enjoyed ten days of close fellowship"

In TEN DAYS USING GARDENING TOOLS they dug down 30 feet then buried the site again (which was demanded by the Israeli antiquity officers) ??? He keeps saying "OUR TEAM" when it was him and Ron and his son. EVEN IF THEY DUG FOR A MONTH they couldn't do that. WITH GARDENING TOOLS hahahahahahaha. That's too funny.

#3 "It had been hidden there, he said, by the priests during the Babylonian siege in 586 BC. As he told it, it was a gripping story, and somewhat believable to someone with a romantic bent. It wasn't hard to imagine the senior Levites, foreseeing the imminent collapse of Jerusalem's defenses, plotting to hide the precious furnishings, during midnight darkness, in a secret cavern in the no-man's land outside the city walls. Wyatt not only constructed this story... I am a long-time member of the S.D.A. fraternity."

So as a long time member of the SDA "FRATERNITY" Mr Brandstater should believe the Spirit of Prophecy eh?

Ellen White wrote...

"Before the temple was destroyed, God made known to a few of His faithful servants the fate of the temple, which was the pride of Israel, and which they regarded with idolatry, while they were sinning against God. He also revealed to them the captivity of Israel. These righteous men, just before the destruction of the temple, removed the sacred ark containing the tables of stone, and with mourning and sadness, secreted it in a cave where it was to be hid from the people of Israel, because of their sins, and was to be no more restored to them. That sacred ark is yet hid. It has never been disturbed since it was secreted."--4SG 114, 115 (1864);1SP 414 (1870); SR 195.

That was in 1864 that she wrote this and if Mr Brandstater really is a Seventh Day Adventist (Works at Loma Linda University) and as "close acquaintance" with Ron as he claimed he should have known this quote existed, because Ron used to quote it ALL THE TIME. So who is right? GOD and His Spirit given through Mrs White or Mr Brandstater? As Seventh Day Adventists you should be able to answer that question, if you really are an Adventist.

#4: "Many months later Wyatt suddenly turned up in my town, Redlands. He phoned me and I invited him for an update chat."

After Mr Brandstater stalked Ron all the way to Turkey he has the nerve to claim this? Mr Brandstater had a man crush on Ron as you should be able to tell by his earlier statement "Amongst them all, Wyatt stood out, a tall impressive bearded figure, striding around with great self-assurance." Or does anyone really think that Mr Brandstater just happened to show up in Turkey during one of Ron's visits there? The man is a glory hound and that is why he stalked Ron all the way to Turkey.

#5 "it was a gripping story, and somewhat believable to someone with a romantic bent." "What could I say to an invitation like this? Was this serious archeology, or was it an Indiana Jones adventure?"

In HIS MIND maybe, but that was not what motivated Ron Wyatt.

This idiot even gets into arguments with Wikipedia about these issues... This is posted on the WIKI page he started to berate Ron after his death...

"Why hasn't the wiki-Editors (one of which is also editor of the anti-creationist website Talkorigins.org) continued to put forth an unsubstantiated view that Ron Wyatt was a nurse-anesthetist in Nashville in 1960, even after this post was listed? And further, if Wiki cannot substantiate the fact with documentation that he was a nurse-anesthetist in 1960, why do they continue to allow that to go into print? Why is this article written like an anti-Wyatt tractate? 99.170.65.102 07:53, 21 April 2008"

Then in the article you quoted APL after one paragraph of what happened in Israel when Ron brought him there and he wasn't permitted to see the Ark, he starts a rant about how Ron was mentally ill.

God would not let this man anywhere near the ARK because HE (LIKE DANNY SHELTON) was not of the right mind. GOD sees the heart, Ron could not, so when he would bring someone God did not want there he would make it impossible to find the access.

If you knew anything about this situation you would hold your tongue APL, but it amazes me how people like you are willing to attack what you don't know.

EVERY TIME Ron brought others who were not of pure heart God would not open the path, it looked like a solid rock surface or the cave direction would change. Israeli records prove that 6 men died trying to recover the ark claiming to be of the tribe of Levi which is IMPOSSIBLE to claim. RON WAS AMAZED that they had found the entrance because NO ONE ELSE had been permitted in. "...secreted it in a cave where it was to be hid from the people of Israel, because of their sins, and was to be no more restored to them.

Those men who insisted on moving it, THEY DIED, get it? Do you want that result for yourself? Are you so bold as to reach out and attempt to steady the Ark without God telling you to? WOW! Sounds a lot like UZZAH! and seeing the result of that mans testimony I can see why he was not permitted in

Not going to defend your statement APL?

Never made that claim. I have met Wyatt, yes. I have known one of those that have traveled to the Middle East with him for over half my life, yes, and he has found Wyatt to be a fraud, my term as his description is more kind than mine, tis true. Apology accepted.

I trust Brandstater, Wyatt I do not.

Never made that claim? In post 178479 I quote your words that are NOT in the quote you supplied...

"I know this man for over half of my life."

So if YOU didn't say it maybe the demon inside of you did, because those words ARE NOT in the quote you supplied. So are you the liar?

JSOT - Perhaps the demon in your head? Should I quote what I wrote in context? "See: http://www.ldolphin.org/wyatt1.html I know this man for over half of my life."

Did you see the link which has the article written by the person I have known over half my life? Yep. I trust Brandstater, not Wyatt.

Again - I accept your apology, even before you ask while you are still a sinner.

You sure didn't structure that sentence appropriately. You didn't even mention his name after just talking about Ron Wyatt. Now I'm going to have to contact Branstater to prove if you are lying or not. You know my name what is yours so I can talk to Branstater to prove if you are lying?

Why don't you ask Brandstater about when he stalked Ron all the way to Turkey, claiming he just happen to meet him? Ask him how many different groups of people he was talking about when he said the Hotel was buzzing with men LOOKING for the ark. Ron had already been acknowledged by the Turkish government as the finder of true Noah's ark and BRANDSTATER was totally on board then. He used to claim that GOD led him to be a helper for Ron.

Ask him how he went from being an avid supported, not just casual, but obsessed with the Noah's Ark discovery, then when he wasn't permitted to see the ark of the covenant he turned on Ron.

***** STAFF EDIT *****

So YOU have sin in YOUR big toe. Good for you.

///

Isaiah 1:5-6 Why should you be stricken any more? you will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 6 From the sole of the foot even to the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

ADMIN HAT ON!!!!!

Please post to the thread topic and stop getting personal against each other in your posts.

If this continues, I will close this thread until I am ready to post my own post in response to the two videos in this thread.

ADMIN HAT OFF!!!!!

Context my friend, context. Because there was no ark. It was all fabricated by Ron.

From http://ldolphin.org/wyatt.html

Ron Wyatt Information Resources

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q. We had a man named Ron Wyatt who came to our city and claimed that he had discovered Noah's Ark and even the Ark of the Covenant? Is this for real?


A. Ron Wyatt, who has been telling his tales of discovering Noah's Ark, the chariots of Pharaoh, the pillars of Solomon, the true  Mt. Sinai, the tomb of the Patriarchs, Sodom & Gomorrah, the place of Christ's crucifixion, and the Ark of the Covenant for many years, has been documented as an archaeological fraud. Both former "friends" as well as professional archaeologists in his own denomination (Seventh- Day Adventist) have published detailed refutations of all of his "discoveries." Rather than go into such details here we refer those interested in the documentation against Wyatt to request a free packet of papers by archaeologists in Wyatt's denomination from: Dr. David Merling, Associate Director & Curator, Institute of Archaeology, Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49104-0990.

 

(E-Mail: [url=mailto:hornmusm@andrews.edu]hornmusm@andrews.edu[/url]). Extensive examinations of his most extravagant claims may be found on the Internet at: http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/ (and especially the following at this site:


http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/Fenner.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BaumgardnerLetter.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound1.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound2.html,
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-231.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/526.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/1154.asp
http://www.fui.com/cim/reports/wyatt.txt
http://www.mysite.xtra.co.nz/~Papanui


Yet, despite the fact that Wyatt has never submitted verifiable evidence for his claims to competent authorities, his books, video tapes and lectures in churches and at hotel meeting rooms (with the Prophecy Club) have won him a fervent following among less discerning Christians. Concerning the claims that most excite his audiences - his supposed discovery of Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant - we may briefly state the following. His Noah's Ark site had been examined and long abandoned by Ark hunters and geologists as a natural formation before Wyatt and others came to the spot, and it has continued to be proven to be such (even though the Turks gave it credibility for the sake of tourism). There are eight other smaller formations like it in the area, so if this is Noah's Ark there must have been a fleet of them!  As to the Ark of the Covenant, Wyatt says that he found it along with the Table of Shewbread, the Golden Altar of Incense, and the Menorah (a seven-branched candelabra) which stood in the ancient Temple, in a cave inside the hill called "Gordon's Calvary" in eastern Jerusalem. Wyatt even says he scrapped blood off of the Mercy Seat of the Ark, had it analyzed and found it to have half the normal number of human chromosomes (therefore, the blood of the Virgin born Christ). He further says that the Ark was positioned in such a way so that when Christ was crucified His blood fell through a hole in the cliff above and landed on the Mercy Seat  (thus fulfilling the atonement typified by this object). While such a story thrills audiences, "Gordon's Calvary" cannot be the place of Christ's crucifixion. It has no archaeological support, whereas the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, identified with Christ's crucifixion  since the 4th century A.D. has much). "Gordon's Calvary" at the site of the Protestant "Garden Tomb" is part of a complex of First Temple tombs (about 600 years before Christ), but the New Testament says Jesus tomb was "newly hewn" ().Wyatt's "discoveries" have been rejected by real archaeologists not because, as Wyatt contends, they are jealous, or lack faith, but because his stories are unsubstantiated by facts. If facts are the basis for our faith (Christ actually died and rose again), then it is no lack of faith to demand of those with incredible claims that they be supported with evidence. The bottom line is: Wyatt has given us nothing to believe, so believe nothing he says! 

Posted November 20, 1999



ARCHEOLOGY WITH RON WYATT: a personal account by Bernard Brandstater



Letter from Joe Zias

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 10:13:12 +0300 (IDT)
From: jo@israntique.org.il
To: jsearcy@connecti.org.il
Cc: Harriet@israntique.org.il
Subject: Re: Ron Wyatt

Dear Mr. Searcy

Mr. Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. We are aware of his claims which border on the absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever nor have they ever been published in a professional journal. They fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc. It's amazing that anyone would believe them. Furthermore, he has been thoroughly discredited by various Christian organizations such as Creation Research in Calif. For the latest on his "discoveries" I suggest going into the WWW (use Vista) someone called Tentmaker decided to do an expose of his various claims. Here you will find the truth, which is more amazing that his (RW) fictions.

Shalom

Joe Zias
Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology
Israel Antiquities Authority
POB 586, Jerusalem
Tel. 972 2 292624

I'd like to know the answer to this.

Here is another link that is pertinent to this thread:

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-AGreatChristianScam.html

Convinced yet?

I'm convinced about Ron Wyatt.

But, I still believe what he found about the Red Sea Crossing is the best understanding of that event. Even if he did plant the chariot wheels.

That whole location of the crossing point, the travel of the Israelites and location of Mt. Sinai all make the most sense.

So, I need a better explanation in order to change my mind on that one.

http://www.ldolphin.org/franz-ellawz.html

Franz gives his studied opinions as to the route of the Exodus, and it is also just a studied opinion, not PROOF,

I did read his refutation that Mt. Sinai was supposedly NOT in the land of Midian and have questions concerning that --

Based on "Exodus 18, Franz makes the deduction that --
"Moses and the Israelites are camped at "the Mountain of God" (Mt. Sinai) when Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, visits them. Verse 27 says, "Then Moses let his father-in-law depart [from Mt. Sinai], and he went his way to his own land [Midian]." Jethro departs from Mt. Sinai to return to the Land of Midian."


Could Franz be WRONG on this point?
And the proponents of Jebel el Lawz as Mount Sinai be right?
Scripture (and EGW) tells us that Mount Sinai was in Horeb.



If you read Exodus 3, Moses, while still tending Jethro's sheep, led those sheep to the "Mountain of God" in Horeb.
That's where God appeared to him in the burning bush and called him to lead Israel out of slavery.

Notice the NAME of the place:

Exodus 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.


Would Moses, with Jethro's sheep, have travelled all the way from Midean, around the Gulf of Aquada (arm of the Red Sea) then south to the place that is historically cited as Mt. Sinai?

I rather doubt it.

Now notice that Israelites were in Horeb at Mt. Sinai.

"The glory of God still hovered above Sinai in the sight of the congregation; but they turned away, and asked for other gods. "They made a calf in Horeb, and worshiped the molten image. Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox." Psalm 106:19, 20. [PP317}

"The whole congregation of Israel now encamped in the plain, in full view of Mount Horeb. Then followed the days of preparation for the great scene which was to make a most vivid impression upon their minds. The Lord gave Moses express directions in regard to this preparation which must be made by his people. "And the Lord said unto Moses, go unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow; and let them wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day; for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people, upon Mount Sinai." {ST, March 7, 1878 par. 3}


So Mt. Sinai (Horeb) does sound like it is in Midian or at least right next to Midian, not across a gulf --

From http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound1.html

I now revise my opinion of Wyatt from a fraud to
a fraud, a thief/plagiarist or whatever you would call it, and a dappler in witchcraft/dowsing.

The more I learn about him, the worse my opinion of him, if that's possible.

"the lost Ark of the Covenant buried 20 feet below the crucifixion site."

One place I thought he said 40 feet. Let's go with 20. How much blood would be needed to get "a few drops" through 20 feet of dry rock? This means, Green, that not all of his blood would run through the crack, some would land on the sides.

Is not your reply also an opinion even though it might be logical, or do you call it PROOF? alchemy likes his opinion also, but there is still the matter of PROOF. I just read though the SDA Bible Commentary on the topic and they put Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula, not in Saudi Arabia. Did that writer not consider all the facts too? In my personal opinion, Mt. Sinai being located in what is now called Saudi Arabia makes more sense but I have not seen what I would call definitive PROOF. Wyatt has not provided PROOF.

On the topic of Noah's Ark, one paragraph from EGW is enough to call into question the location on the side of a mountain in Turkey - As the waters began to subside, the Lord caused the ark to drift into a spot protected by a group of mountains that had been preserved by His power. These mountains were but a little distance apart, and the ark moved about in this quiet haven, and was no longer driven upon the boundless ocean. This gave great relief to the weary, tempest-tossed voyagers. {PP 105.2} Does that fit the Turkey location? No.

The following video was recorded in Loma Linda in 2011 where Walter Veith and Francois du Plessis did a series of talks, this one was on the Ark and presents a location in Armenia as a possible location of the Ark and it fits EGW's description of the location while the Turkey location does not.

APL wrote;

"Is not your reply also an opinion even though it might be logical, or do you call it PROOF? alchemy likes his opinion also, but there is still the matter of PROOF. I just read though the SDA Bible Commentary on the topic and they put Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula, not in Saudi Arabia. Did that writer not consider all the facts too? In my personal opinion, Mt. Sinai being located in what is now called Saudi Arabia makes more sense but I have not seen what I would call definitive PROOF. Wyatt has not provided PROOF. "

Ron Wyatt followed the Biblical account more accurately than any other I have heard of.

But, while we are on the point of PROOF, what proof is there that Mt. Sinai is on the Sinai peninsula?

So, the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of the Arabian peninsula.

Just a quick reality check here. You may be right in terms of the modern situation. However, the earth has undergone tremendous geological changes since the Flood, including, as I understand, the lifting of Mount Everest through tectonic shifting, great earthquakes that separated out the continents, and similar "adjustments" to earth's terrain. There is and can be no proof that what we see today is as it was in Noah's day, unless Mrs. White says somewhere that nothing in that region changed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is an important point that Green makes. The surface of the earth has changed to a huge degree in the last 4500 years or so. Our conversation must be kept current.

Hm - did you read the links I suggested? No evidence you did. Were the authors of the SDABC complete idiots?
yes, EGW does speak about the time after the flood. And she compares that to what will happen right before the second coming with respect to changes in the earth surface. All of which does not add support Wyatt's claims on the location of the ark, particularly if Mt. Ararat is volcanic as he claims. And it supports EGW's statements that the ark was in a protected area, surrounded by mountains to shield the ark. Great! Then present your evidence in how in the last 4500 years the earth has changed. How about the last 2000 years, how has it changed?

Yes. Both Green and Alchemy, I want to see some evidence that "the earth has undergone tremendous geological changes since the Flood," and "The surface of the earth has changed to a huge degree in the last 4500 years or so."

Or was that just your opinions?

Kland and APL,

The Bible speaks of the division of the earth about 100 years after the flood, saying that Peleg was given his name on account of it. But if you would like to prove to me that the Flood waters covered, by 15 cubits, the top of Mount Everest, I would be much obliged. If you wish to believe that Mount Everest existed in that form before or during the Flood, you must be able to support a sufficient quantity of water within earth's sphere to have covered the entire planet by nearly 30,000 feet altitude--the same argument used by many scoffers and doubters to establish that the Bible is fiction.

Mrs. White writes of Noah's ark resting on first one mountain, then another, in that group of mountains where it was sheltered. In her next article about the flood, she continues the story as quoted below. Note the underlined parts if you have not sufficient time to read the whole article.



Ellen White, in the above passage, defines ways in which God has continued to use the transforming powers of the earth as His weaponry since the Flood. This means, of course, that the terrain in such places has changed. Can you or anyone prove that it hasn't changed? No. Can you prove that it hasn't changed in a particular place, e.g. the mountains of Ararat? I don't think so.

From Mrs. White's description, it would have been entirely possible for those very same mountains that sheltered the ark to have been changed, after the waters had subsided enough that they were no longer tossing it around, by the strong wind that God sent to bury the bodies of the dead. In fact, in a sheltered place, it would seem the more bodies would have been present to require such burial. At that point, the shelter from rough seas was no longer needed.

I think there is sufficient "evidence" here upon which I can "rest my case." The point is, we simply do not know if Noah's ark is still in a place that would have provided shelter from rough seas at that time. The terrain may well have changed between then and now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, and "rightly dividing the word" means that you tear it apart, right? Dividing can mean other things such as the measuring the earth. Or if you read in Genesis 10 where is speaks of Peleg about the languages so that the division can mean the spreading out of the peoples of the earth.

Yes, I've read what EGW says about the flood and the post flood time. It is all in Patriarchs and Prophets.
But you can't either. And for Wyatt's location to be the actual location, then whole mountains are gone for the location is on a slope. That is a hard stretch to get to from EGW's description, but you can believe it if you'd like, even though you have not evidence. Your story is just that, a made up story. Interesting you say you have evidence then in the next breath you say you don't know. I think you could just say, you don't know.

APL,

You are the one from the beginning of this discussion point claiming to have certainty. I'm the one from the beginning claiming to not know. It's interesting that you would try to twist those facts around.

You have said that the ark Wyatt found could not have been the true one because it was not in a place surrounded by mountains that would have sheltered it from the waters of the Flood. I said you cannot know that. That's where this started. Now you try to flip the tables?

The fact of the matter remains: from Ellen White's own account of the Flood, God, after allowing time for the waters to abate, then caused a wind that itself changed the terrain, removing the tops of some mountains and causing landslides in order to bury the dead.

Ellen White's description of how the ark settled first at one point, then another mountain, as the waters subsided, leads to some obvious mental pictures. It would have been impossible for this to occur if the ark had been fully supported on the top of the first mountain. It could only have been supported at one end, enough to stop its rocking, as if docked. When the waters receded further, the lower elevation of the waters at the unsupported end allowed the ark to slip out of its first position and back into the waters...only to resettle at a lower point. Therefore, from Mrs. White's word picture of it settling on more than one point, we have a clear fact emerging: the ark will NOT be on the highest point of the mountains in which it is found.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - - who is twisting the facts? I'm pointing out that Wyatt cannot be trusted in anything he says. That is the only certainty. He has no proof of what he says. I quoted EGW. Her description does not fit what Wyatt claims. I will go with EGW's description, which you seem to think that I take to be the highest point, based on no facts again.

Your mental picture reminds me of the stories that scientists put into their articles on evolution, such as there may be more bodies to bury in the location of the ark. That is just pure fantasy with no supporting evidence. Do you believe Wyatt also?

APL,

Your dangling modifiers cause your writing to become too ambiguous to assess their intent. I don't propose to understand whom you are addressing with them, but if you meant that I said there are yet bodies to be buried near the ark, I think you had best re-read, this time for understanding, not soundbites.

As for Wyatt, I've never said I believed him. I've never said I disbelieved everything he said either. Even the devil tells the truth sometimes, and truth should be believed always--regardless of its source. That's why the topic of this thread is not Wyatt. It is Wyatt's claims.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Funny, we are speaking about the ark and its resting place and you through in But of course!! You did not mean near the ark, that is so clear!!! How silly of me to even think you meant such a thing.

No, you haven't yet pinpointed where you were "silly." I'll help you out.



I never came close to saying such a thing as that "there may be more bodies to bury in the location of the ark." What I still believe, however, is that after the waters subsided leaving the ark on solid ground, there were bodies to be buried before the ark could be opened to release its occupants. If you do not also believe this, you either do not accept Ellen White, or you have your own twist of her writings that you shall have difficulty explaining to me. How silly.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Quoting from before:
Pardon me, but it sounded like to me you were expressing certainty that "the earth has undergone tremendous geological changes since the Flood".

Am I correct?

Perhaps you can define when the "flood" was.
I define it as from when Noah went into the ark until he left it.

Mount Everest did not exist before the flood.
It did exist after the flood.

You put forth an arbitrary binomial requirement missing other possibilities. A hint of dishonesty, but perhaps, giving a benefit of a doubt, a lack of thinking it through.

kland,

There is no uncertainty whatsoever that the Flood changed the surface of the earth. That has never been in question here. You may wish to go back and see what the question and the uncertainty was. The uncertainty had to do with where the ark might be found.

Apparently, Wyatt found the ark in a place that APL thinks it could not possibly have been, as it was not on a peak, but rather on a mountain slope, and as it was not surrounded by other mountains. I have stated, and stand by my statement, that there can be no certainty that the mountains in which the ark is located would have remained in their original form/configuration since the time in which they sheltered the ark from the boundless sea of the flood. Even before the ark opened to release its occupants, God Himself caused a wind that changed the terrain in order to bury the dead. At that point, the ark no longer required shelter from the rough sea. Those mountains that sheltered it may have been moved or changed. One or more peaks may have been cast down upon the bodies of the dead.

Certainly, there can be no certainty that the mountains of Ararat would have remained intact from the moment of time in which they are described as sheltering the ark until the present. Further changes have taken place even since the flood, as I already pointed out. Ellen White speaks of some. There is no inspired writing to indicate for us that the mountains of Ararat have remained in the form described to the present time. Therefore, the fact that Wyatt's "ark" has been found in a place that may not have provided shelter to the ark from the waters of the Flood cannot be used to disprove him--at least, not with certainty.

There are some things that are certain, it is true. It is certain there was a flood. It is certain the flood changed the terrain tremendously. It is certain that after the flood many more changes have occurred. It is UNcertain precisely where those changes may have occurred, and whether or not the mountains of Ararat have changed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I never said such a thing! PLEASE reread what I quoted from Ellen White in {PP 105.2} In fact the implications are that the Ark was in a lower place surrounded by peaks, and thus when you said that dead bodies collect in lower places and need to be buried, the implications are around the ark and you got very upset by this but still the the implications are there. Ah but, the Mt. Ararat where Wyatt claims the ark to be is not a group of mountains, but the ark is on the side of a peak which has no semblance to that of what EGW speaks. You can stand in a plain and look up at what is thought to be the ark. On a volcanic peak according to Wyatt. It does not fit! There is no inspired writing that indicate that the mountains surrounding the Ark disappeared. The inspired writing is that the location protected the Ark from the maelstrom that continued to rage around it and the people and animals in it were protected.

Green, why did you say this? Did I suggest that? Where?

And no, I wasn't addressing where the ark might be found but your incorrect assertion,
Wind blown deposits, could or does that make up Mount Everest or Ararat?

Huh? Is this another thing you didn't think through? As in do you think the ark was still floating but not needing protection when the mountain disappeared? What are you really trying to say here?

So why did you start your post as you did when this is what I was addressing?
But doesn't speak of what you do.


True.
But not true what you're suggesting.
Any evidence that could be true? I don't think so. Feel free to present such. Hint: wind blown.

I still need to take the time to watch those videos.

To remind me to watch those videos, etc.

Doesn't look like it:
https://arkencounter.com/noahs-ark/found/
Mount Ararat is a dormant volcano that last erupted in 1840, and many much larger eruptions occurred during the post-Flood Ice Age.