I’ve complained before about the poor quality of Ron Wyatt’s “research” (loosely defined) before. While he may have been well-intentioned (his aim was to defend the Bible’s content), there is no excuse for the kind of paleobabble he has become notorious for. What follows is a simple but telling example (though to be fair, this one comes from Mary Nell Wyatt, whom I presume is Wyatt’s wife).
Wyatt’s name is well known on the internet for touting the Nuweiba location for the crossing the Red (Reed) Sea. It was in conjunction with this investigation that Wyatt allegedly found Egyptian chariot wheels under water in support of his theory.
 |
Did Wyatt ever bring one of these out of the water? The link below claims so, but (as is so common with paleobabble), no independent peer-reviewed examination by archaeologists and other specialists (to see if they were merely coral formations) was ever conducted and published. But aside from that, there are the obvious logic problems: If it was a chariot wheel, how would one know it was Egyptian? If Egyptian, how would one know it was related to the exodus event? And if it was from that event, didn’t anyone notice the incongruity of the sea floor *not* being littered with these wheels?
Wyatt and his defenders — including Nell Wyatt — eventually put forth the idea that chariot wheels (their size, number of spokes) were reliable chronological indicators. Specifically, Wyatt wanted to argue this chariot wheel (if that’s what it was – again, completely absent of context) was only used prior to 1400 BC, a datum which fits with a 1446 BC date for the exodus, the date arrived at by a literal biblical chronology. The Pharaoh of the exodus in that dating scenario is an 18th dynasty pharaoh. Mary Wyatt defends this idea on the “Wyatt Newsletters” site here. I’d like to draw your attention to a few selections in particular:
The significance of these wheels is of extreme importance to the dating of the Exodus and determining which dynasty was involved. Back in the late 70’s, Ron actually retrieved a hub of a wheel which had the remains of 8 spokes radiating outward from it. He took this to Cairo, to the office of Nassif Mohammed Hassan, the director of Antiquities whom Ron had been working with. Mr. Hassan examined it and immediately pronounced it to be of the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt. When Ron asked him how he knew this so readily, Mr. Hassan explained that the 8-spoked wheel was only used during the 18th Dynasty. This certainly narrowed the date. We began to thoroughly research the Egyptian chariot and soon discovered that the fact that Ron and the boys found 4, 6 and 8 spoked wheels places the Exodus in the 18th Dynasty according to numerous sources, such as the following: “Egyptian literary references to chariots occur as early as the reigns of Kamose, the 17th Dynasty king who took the first steps in freeing Egypt from the Hyksos, and Ahmose, the founder of the 18th Dynasty. Pictorial representations, however, do not appear until slightly later in the 18th Dynasty….” (From “Observations on the Evolving Chariot Wheel in the 18th Dynasty” by James K. Hoffmeier, JARCE #13, 1976)
The author [Hoffmeier] goes on to explain how it was only during the 18th Dynasty that the 4, 6 and 8 spoked wheels are used- and that monuments can actually be dated by the number of spokes in the wheel: “Professor Yigael Yadin maintains that during the earlier part of the 18th Dynasty, the Egyptian chariot was `exactly like the Canaanite chariot:’ both were constructed of light flexible wood, with leather straps wrapped around the wood to strengthen it, and both utilized wheels with four spokes. In Yadin’s eyes, the four-spoked wheel is diagnostic for dating purposes; it is restricted to the early part of the 18th Dynasty. It remained in vogue, he says, until the reign of Thutmoses IV, when `the Egyptian chariot begins to shake off its Canaanite influence and undergo considerable change.’ Yadin believes that the eight-spoked wheel, which is seen on the body of Thutmoses IV’s chariot, was an experiment by the Egyptian wheelwrights, who, when it proved unsuccessful, settled thereafter for the six-spoked wheel. So widespread and meticulous is the delineation of the number of wheel spokes on chariots depicted on Egyptian monuments that they can be used as a criterion for determining whether the monument is earlier or later than 1400 BC.” (Quoted from the same article as above.)
Sounds credible, doesn’t it? Sure … until you actually read Hoffmeier’s article for yourself. Those who do will discover that Mary Wyatt misquotes the article. She cannot follow the argument or (more likely in my view) cherry-picks the article for what will help her point. Here are Hoffmeier’s words, beginning with the portion Wyatt utilizes (numbers at end of lines indicate footnotes in the original article):
Professor Yigael Yadin maintains that during the earlier part of the 18th Dynasty, the Egyptian chariot was “exactly like the Canaanite chariot :”6 both were constructed of light flexible wood, with leather straps wrapped around the wood to strengthen it, and both utilized wheels with four spokes. In Yadin’s eyes the four-spoked wheel is diagnostic for dating purposes; it is restricted to the early period of the 18th Dynasty. It remained in vogue, he says, until the reign of Thutmose IV, when “the Egyptian chariot begins to shake off its Canaanite influence and undergo considerable change.”7 Yadin believes that the eight-spoked wheel, which is seen on the body of Thutmose IV’s chariot,8 was an experiment by the Egyptian wheelwrights, who, when it proved unsuccessful, settled thereafter for the six-spoked wheel. In short, “So widespread and meticulous is the delineation of the number of wheel spokes on chariots depicted on Egyptian monuments that they can be used as a criterion for determining whether the monument is earlier or later than 1400 B.C.”9
Hoffmeier does not stop there, though Mary Wyatt’s citation does — suggesting Hoffmeier is in agreement with Yadin. He isn’t. Hoffmeier goes on to question, critique, and overturn Yadin’s thesis:
Yadin’s observations raise two questions. First, is the number of spokes in the wheel of the chariot as reliable a dating tool as he suggests? Secondly, what prompted the change from the four- to six-spoked wheel? Was it purely a way to “shake off Canaanite influences,” or was there a more practical motivation for the shift?
A chariot scene from the tomb of Ken-Amun10 (dated to the reign of Amenhotep II) shows a partially obliterated chariot. Four-spoked wheels are invariably depicted with the spokes in a 12, 6, 3, and 9 o’clock position, but in this scene the two visible spokes point toward 12 and 4 o’clock; this indicates a six-spoked wheel.
The introduction of the six-spoked wheel did not herald the immediate end of the four-spoked wheel, for Amenhotep II himself is shown driving a chariot of the older type on the red granite block discovered by M. H. Chevrier,11 as is Userhet, an official in his court.12 Subsequently we find Thutmose IV riding a chariot with eight-spoked wheels in the scene which for Yadin marked the beginning of the shift away from the four-spoked wheel.13 As we have seen, however, there is evidence of a wheel with six spokes in the preceeding reign, and we conclude that the shift began before 1400 B.C. Possibly the chariot of Thutmose IV was produced in a period when experimentation was still in progress, or alternatively, the chariot was custom made according to the king’s specifications. Either explanation might seem plausible, since until recently no other 18th Dynasty Egyptian chariot wheels with eight spokes had come to light. However, while browsing through some of the assembled talatat scenes in the Akhenaton Temple Project office in Cairo, the writer came across a processional scene in which Akhenaton is shown riding in a chariot that had eight spokes in its wheels. This scene tends to support the hypothesis that the Thutmose IV chariot was a custom- made vehicle, as Akhenaton’s would have been.
Another pictorial source from the reign of Thutmose IV is the workshop scene from the tomb of Hepu.15 Here wheelwrights are working on wheels that are supported by four spokes. This suggests that the four-spoked wheel remained in use for a limited time after 1400 B.C. Thereafter, for the remainder of the 18th Dynasty, the chariot wheel is regularly represented with six spokes,16 the single exception being the eight-spoked wheel of Akhenaton mentioned above. In the 19th and 20th Dynasties, the chariot wheels, for the most part, continue to have six spokes.
We see them, for example, on the royal chariots of Seti I,17 Ramesses II,18 and Ramesses III.19 Admittedly, for the reigns of Ramesses II20 and Ramesses III,21 one can cite scenes depicting four- spoked wheels, but, in each instance, the chariots are driven by foreign warriors. Again, chariot wheels with eight spokes are found in the Ramesside era, but they are limited to a few chariots driven by Hittites. The Hittite chariots normally had six spokes in each wheel. According to the evidence presented here, the six-spoked wheel is regularly portrayed in the chariots used by monarchs after Thutmose IV, the sole exception being the talatat scene from the Amarna period mentioned above. However, contrary to Yadin’s position, the six-spoked wheel is found before 1400 B.C. But he is basically correct in stating that the six-spoked wheel is consistently shown on chariots after 1400 B.C. Yadin’s explanation for the shift in the number of wheel spokes is hardly convincing.
The Egyptians were certainly jingoistic, but it is stretching the point to believe that they would alter the number of wheel spokes merely to “shake off Canaanite influences,” and thereby assert their nationalistic identity. They were eminently practical, and we must seek a practical reason for the change.
There’s really no excuse for this sort of stilted research. It’s simply not honest to hack a scholar’s article for what you want to say, leaving readers in the dark as to the contrary information, thus misrepresenting your source’s actual viewpoint.
I would be more interested to know if the 8 spoke wheel was not as common after the 18th dynasty than during.
true – that is the kind of question that would help frame the issue.
Instead of “complaining” about the details of 4-6-8 spoked Egyptian chariot wheels, you would do better to pay attention to *ALL* of the evidence like how Ron’s site of the crossing is the PERFECT location of the crossing site, and how it leads to the location of a PERFECT candidate for being the real Mt. Sinai (and the TONS of evidence there that the Bible describes as being there) — and if you’re upset that there are not more of coral-covered chariot wheels laying around in the Gulf of Aqaba, remember that the violent waters of the crossing site crashing into the Egyptians would have washed many of them sideways and over the steep edges of the underwater landbridge and into the depths on either side! I myself am getting really tired of hearing all this complaining about Ron’s discovery sites, it’s like all of you people have an “agenda” just to make Ron look wrong, and in the process you selectively block out and IGNORE the tons of positive evidence Ron diligently provided — sorry, but it makes you all look like very foolish people who just can’t and/or won’t pay attention — I managed Ron Wyatt’s 1st museum in Gatlinburg, TN for 2 and 1/2 years in 1994-1996 and shared Ron’s documentation for 7 important biblical discoveries with literally thousands of people, and the bulk of the people who “paid attention” to the information we shared with them left BLESSED by this material! Mahoney Media is getting ready to release a $2 million documentary film (www.ExodusConspiracy.com) and Dr. Lennart Moller in Sweden has published THE EXODUS CASE book which seriously focused on the Red Sea Crossing site, and he had NO PROBLEMS with the coral-covered chariot wheels that he himself investigated!!! FYI, Moller rubs elbows with the people over there who do the Nobel Prizes — the NOBEL PRIZES!!! — pretty soon there are going to be LOTS of extremely intelligent professionals siding with Ron’s material, so the nay-sayers and critics had better be very careful mocking and/or “disagreeing” with these discoveries, because we are coming up to a time when it’s *ALL* going to be shared with the entire world for the blessing that it is! Regarding what Mary Nell did or didn’t write/quote in her newsletter articles (which I helped illustrate), what I do know is that she had limited space, so whatever she quoted had to be short and to the point — and why should she publish a person’s negation of a positive observation?? Ron Wyatt was not in the business of sharing negative information, he was fighting the up-hill battle for the Truth with POSITIVE and supportive material — if Ron and Mary Nell had printed all the “negative” opinions they heard for all 7 of the discoveries, their newsletter would be filled with them! Ron’s ministry for the Lord dealt with sharing the POSITIVE viewpoints of God finally sharing and showing mankind these awesome and wonderful biblical discoveries.
I’m quite familiar with all the proposed locations for Sinai (I do not embrace the traditional Jebel Musa site). I teach this stuff in college, and have done so for nearly 20 years. All the proposed sites have problems. What Wyatt says does not argue for or against any of them. My objection is when he jumps the shark when connecting data point A to data point B, or when he *assumes* a correlation without actual evidence, or when he just says things without any data or effort at identification (along the “the government came and took my evidence for aliens” approach). I don’t care if people are blessed by it, precisely because I don’t want faith destroyed. When people make bogus arguments with specious logic or phony data and then that gets exposed, the faith of many is harmed, despite the fact that it may have been encouraged prior to that exposure. I also don’t care who rubs elbows with whom. If those whose elbows are rubbed publish real data with conclusions deriving from rigorous testing, then I’ll care. Truth is not determined by who you know.
MSH — Your response mystifies me — you have clearly not paid attention to Ron Wyatt’s discovery evidence, because you keep writing such statements as “he just says things without any data or effort at identification,” and that Ron made “bogus arguments with specious logic or phony data” — this is OUTRAGIOUS for you to say, and not true! You also write, “I also don’t care who rubs elbows with whom” when I tell you about Dr. Lennart Moller working there in Sweden with the people who deal with awarding the Nobel Prizes — are you out of your mind?? Show a little professional common sense, and AGAIN I will say that you really ought to pay attention to the follow-up work that has been diligently and professionally performed by Dr. Moller in his book THE EXODUS CASE and the up-coming $2 million Exodus Conspiracy film! It contains the “real data” that you profess to want to see, but you obviously haven’t yet truly seen — open your eyes, MSH! Have you even read Dr. Moller’s book? HAVE YOU READ IT? Proverb 18:13 says, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a folly and a shame unto him” — Moller’s EXODUS CASE book came out in 2000 and has had 3 editions come off the press — if you have not read this book, you have no right whatsoever to post your comments about Dr. Moller’s work as it relates to Ron Wyatt’s discoveries! HAVE YOU READ THIS BOOK, MSH?
examples: the pole with the “Solomon inscription” disappearing; the absence of testing any chariot wheel; the non-sequitur thinking (“hey. that split rock must be the one Moses hit”); ignoring the dating results for sites that conflict with the early exodus date. I could spend weeks on this, but I won’t. I’ll make it simple:
1. Direct me to the peer-reviewed research in support of Wyatt’s archaeology. (If it’s real, there is no harm or fear of submitting one’s research to the critique of others for verification and then publishing the results; that is how science and scholarship in biblical studies is done).
2. Direct me to the published lab findings verifying Wyatt’s analysis of any object retrieved in his travels.
Very simple. Very straightforward. When you produce this, I will have a look. If you don’t produce it, I won’t waste my time.
Jim,
The very fact that you think and describe Ron Wyatt’s theories about the crossing site and the site of Mt. Sinai as “PERFECT” and the emphasis you put on “*ALL*” of the evidence supporting Ron’s ‘discoveries’ leads me to believe that you are not looking at the subject objectively, and probably have never even seriously considered any of the objections to Ron Wyatt’s claims or the evidence for the opposing views.
When it comes to the world of Ancient History and Archaeology, nothing is PERFECT. There is simply too much missing information, and too much uncertainty even about the information we have for things to be perfect.
I am a conservative, bible believing Christian, and I grew up in a conservative non-denominational, evangelical family. One thing I have learned over my lifetime of experience in that background is that Christians are one of the most gullible groups of people around. As long as the person speaking claims to be a Christian and uses the right Christianese terminology, and tells them what they want to hear, most Christians will believe ANYTHING that person says. They will believe it no matter what the evidence is to the contrary and no matter how bad the reasoning the person relies upon.
Time and time again I see people who are otherwise intelligent and even well educated falling for utter nonsense because it is presented to them as something which bolsters their faith. This ranges from urban legends (such as NASA scientists verifying Joshua’s long day, or the Atheist college professor dropping the chalk to prove there is no God) to the outright frauds and con artists who make money through selling books and speaking engagements etc.
Part of this gullibility, in my opinion, derives from the idea, or the desire that things should align “PERFECTLY” with our faith. Christians want to believe that all the history and archaeology and science etc lines up PERFECTLY not only with our faith in general but with our specific personal understanding of the christian faith. If things don’t line up perfectly then we often prefer to believe that there is some conspiracy to hide the truth, which would line up perfectly if only it were allowed to see the light of day.
The reality of our world is that it is not perfect. Our knowledge is not perfect and the information we have available certainly is not perfect. Nor is our understanding of that information. Christians don’t need to be fed a fantasy version of reality in which everything lines up perfectly to support their faith. I don’t see that anywhere in the bible.
Ironically the root attitude here is born of modernism and a materialistic ‘scientism’ in which it is held that a view must be proven in order to be believable. This is why so many people feel that evidence must line up perfectly with what they believe and also why they find it to be so challenging to their faith when it does not.
yes; the myth of certainty (better, the myth that certainty is needed in such things) really drives this.
I know of not too many giant 50 ft rocks split right down the middle sitting nearby a mountain called Jebel Al Lawz which sits in the location that some scholars believe is Median (and indeed it is Arabia as Paul wrote) and has obvious erosion marks flowing from it indicating the flow of much water. Some how the comprehensive factor just evaded you and you just wrote about just that rock sitting in the desert. I see such rocks everyday but they are figurative ones that exist in the minds of skeptics indicating a split brain.
Erosion is not splitting the rock. The text does not describe erosion. It is very clearly described as a supernatural event. The other issue is that the text never describes a clean split with only one fissure (it doesn’t describe anything so precise), and so such “visual confirmation” is bogus.
Here are the two passages where Moses is associated with a rock to get water for the Israelites:
Exod 17:6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel. 7 And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord by saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”
Num 20:10 Then Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” 11 And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock.
If the issue was erosion, we have to assume that among the throng of Israelites not a single person (including, apparently, Moses) could see the water that was eroding the rock.
But perhaps you are arguing that the erosion began with the water that appeared at the Moses event. Other than the logic problems this involves, let’s start with the obvious question: Do these rocks indeed show signs of water erosion? Please produce the science on that (some sort of geological report). We can go from there. My point in asking is that I don’t assume when Wyatt told his readers as such that he actually checked any geological reports. But I could be wrong — that is why I am asking for the reports. If they do not exist, then it’s another mark against the quality of Wyatt’s work and an other illustration of his propensity to just say things assuming they will not be challenged.
This is a reasonable request. My guess is that if there is any geological evidence for water erosion it will be for periods well before any of the exodus dates.
Lastly, I favor the el-Lawz site as well, but you are uninformed if you assume that the identification is not without problems. They ALL have problems. I’m just being honest and dismissing arguments that play on gullibility.
And incidentally, I’m not a skeptic. I just want data that exist. It’s not unreasonable to base one’s arguments on data that exist; basing them on data that do not exist is what is incoherent.
A related question –
In Kitchen’s On The Reliability of the OT he links the water from to rock events to natural geology of the region. He even sites a story from 1920 about an army NCO who hit a rock in this area with a spade and water gushed out. His men teased him by calling him Moses after the event.
Kitchen considers this evidence that Exodus recounts real knowledge of the natural conditions in the exodus route. This is practicle knowledge exiles in Babylon might not have – pointing to an early author.
What do you think of Kitchens idea here Dr. Heiser?
the material does not help date the authorship of the Torah (or any portion of it) in any way. All one needs to do is postulate that a Jew in Babylon had been to the region and also found water at a very shallow level, like the 1920 illustration. If it happened in 1920, it could happen at any point. This sort of thing might make Kitchen feel better, but it is an extremely poor argument (not to say Kitchen’s positions depend on such arguments or that illustration; they don’t). It amounts to an argument by analogy *at best*, which is not data for the actual question at hand.
The scenario by James K. Hoffmeier appears to be the most possible..
there is also the possibilty that the exodus never happened as stated by Israel Finkelstein whose says that it was most likely the Kyksos were being expelled… instead of being captive..
i sofar in my desire to find god inside “history” i dont find much taht did not relates to political motivations and racism this in the 3 main religions..
in it the nazis claiming to be christians, jews who claim to be jews an eternel war with arabs and all vaididated slavery inside scriptures.. even Darwin appeared to be somewhat racists..
You mean “Hyksos”.
You caricature (even of Nazis) is pretty silly. I notice that you excluded the Muslim Arabs. Oops. Or was that deliberate? Don’t bother replying, since I’ll filter out anyone who wants to pursue racist twaddle or religious bigotry on this blog. You’re a step away.
@ MSH you completely misunderstood my post or my dissatisfaction toward religions – if you read my post I worded 3 mains religion as it contains root of racism that were used and continue to be used. Racists being part of of the Muslim population are included.
I make allusion to the mark of cain, the curse of ham and the various other interpretations
which lead to racism.. slavery etc.
The reason I blasted is there seem to have posters posting on your blogs their link from christiangenea.org… it seem to be neo-nazi, white supremacists or something..
I don’t agrre with any racists views : http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/racewithoutcolor444
you’re right; I did misunderstand it. I did see you mentioned three, but then you targeted only two in specific comments; hence my note. I accept your reply, though.
no problem msh
i dont know if u ever heard of jared diamond ( portfolio on wikipedia) . He wrote book on whyancient civilizations fails..
among other this short article..
http://anthropology.lbcc.edu/handoutsdocs/mistake.pdf
haven’t heard of him.
Lost Angel,
The fact that things like the mark of Cain and the curse of Ham (or Canaan actually) have been used to justify racism, slavery, etc, does not mean that they inherently lead to it.
Consider for a moment that western civilization, particularly in terms of morality, was dominated by the Judeo-Christian worldview and the Bible. Within western civilization you had both those people who tried to promote and champion black slavery (necessitating racist views) as well as those who championed the abolition of slavery.
In both cases, both pro-slavery and anti-slavery people made recourse to the Bible in order to try and prove their case. Why is this? The answer is simply because the Bible was recognized by all as the primary moral authority or the primary moral standard and as a result in order to make a case that would resonate with people and would be believed, they HAD to go to the Bible.
Now, the really interesting part, and the part you never hear in schools or in most of the media, is the question… over the course of the development of western civilization was the trend of Christianity towards slavery, or away from it? In other words, did the moral culture created by reliance upon the Bible tend to approve slavery, or tend to disapprove it?
The only possible honest answer from history is that Christianity and the bible in its mainstream application disapproved slavery and eventually lead to its abolition. This of course was not fully accomplished until the 19th century, but this was actually the end of a trend that had been going on for 1500 years or more.
Along with that you should also ask the question, why is western civilization the FIRST, and ONLY civilization in history to completely abolish slavery and to eschew racism as a moral evil?
The point being that racism and slavery have been part of the human condition in every culture the world has ever known. The west is not unique in having been racist, or in having had slaves. The west is, however, unique for abolishing slavery and for trying to eradicate racism.
Many people in the west now try to indict Christianity and the west because we now view slavery and racism as evil, and we recognize that they existed in our past… but the question we should be asking is how did we come to view them as evil in the first place? Why did they become viewed as evil in western culture, but not in any other culture?
@ Josh thanks: in retrospect slavery existed before the christian and muslim empires.. a long way to go..
MSH — If the only thing that will convince you about Ron Wyatt’s material is “published peer review material,” then you may have a long wait — you really want the scientists of today to verify biblical archaeology sites?? The bulk of what you are going to get from them is contrary opinions, and most scientists don’t even believe the Bible! So unless you are willing to step out in faith, you’re never going to believe — sorry, but the Mt. Sinai Jebel el Lawz site is THOUSANDS of years old, you are never going to find proof that satisfies you 100%… in my opinion, yes, the evidence at the Jebel el Lawz site is PERFECT because there is an amazing amount of it that directly points to the reality that it fits the Bible’s description of the events that took place at Mt. Sinai! No other site on the planet has such evidence — so any honest person is going to look at this site and admit that it *IS* probably the real Mt. Sinai! You have problems with understanding water erosion?? And you really think that it’s wise to say that even if it is water erosion there at the split rock then it might have happened “before” Moses got there?? Why go to that extreme of needing to “pre-date” the event?? Why work so hard to negate such obvious evidence?? Do you know how long and how hard it would have to rain to do that much water erosion into stone? It DOESN’T rain that much in that part of the world, and it NEVER DID — so the “erosion” streaks are either caused by the flow of melted rock (but I seriously doubt that there is a volcano tube leading right to the base of this giant split rock, but you would probably demand that a geologist excavate to see), or the ONLY pausable explanation is that LOTS OF WATER CAME OUT OF THAT ROCK, just like the Bible says. Yet you think you need to hold out for another solution for this????? And if the “pre-dating” event you are referring to was The Flood, then ALL the big rocks, split or not, in the area should show the same evidence of water erosion at their bases — but I’m willing to bet they don’t! When the Mahoney Media film comes out (www.ExodusConspiracy.com), then all the “peers” around the world will see this site and then toss in their 2 cents worth — and I will be proud to say that I didn’t need them to “approve” this site for me to believe, I had a sufficient connection with God to clearly understand that Ron Wyatt’s evidence was the best evidence this planet can or will ever provide when I first saw this material back in the early 1990s.
I’m a biblical scholar. I know this field. There are lots of real, genuine biblical scholars out there who do good work in historiography and archaeological science to support the biblical record. I don’t need to wait since this sort of work has been happening for over a century. If you want a web-based treatment of the problems of the el-Lawz site (which – AGAIN – is the one I like), see that of Gordon Franz. You should be able to find it pretty easily. It’s a nice intro. I’m not a biblical skeptic; I just insist on real research with real data that gets peer-reviewed by real scholars. People whose work is not peer-reviewed cannot blame the reviewers. They need to submit it and get it reviewed just like everyone else. It’s not rocket science.
@ Jim Pinkoski
I d not always agree with MSH specially in regards to politics him being on the right and me holding
leftist views, this aside MSH is absolutely right when asking to get peer reviews..
Ron Wyatt insofar appear to be a biblical, archeological exploitationist and profiteer noneless with his chariot wheel theory and with his famous find of having seen the Arch of the Covenant recently posted inside these blogs.. Apart from providing entertainment for the weak minded: i do not see the adavncement of any goal other than boasting and profit from Ron Wyatt..who would certainly self-canonize St-Ron Of the Chariot Wheel and Patron of the Arch of Covenenant ( he just did) all by himself. ie i think he should re-imbourse his believers including you, because this tantamount to fraud.
When the Mahoney Media film comes out, then lots of people will be reviewing the material — some will continue to listen to Gordon Franz and his comments of how it’s impossible for people to walk across the Sinai in 7 days, even though we are dealing with a God who can strengthen us to “do all things” — and if God had made water come out of a rock that would leave “no evidence,” then we would NEVER be able to identify any site as being the Rock at Horeb, which is why I prefer the version wherein God *DID* leave evidence for the giant split Rock at Horeb — and if there are other Egyptian-style petroglyphs in the area around Jebel el-Lawz, sure, we will investigate them, and there is also probably a similar way to explain them — Gordon also criticizes the large rocks at the Golden Calf altar, as if Aaron couldn’t have “built” it because the rocks are too big for him to personally move — but when you’re putting together a central altar for 30,000+ people to “party” around, why would Aaron build some little rinky-dink pile of stones as an altar?? People should use their common sense here, but Gordon doesn’t — Aaron would look around and see that an existing pile of LARGE boulders was already there, and then he would work with that! And to punish the people Moses ground up the golden calf and made the people drink it, but Gordon also supposes that Moses would have also been required to remove the Egyptian-style cow and bull petroglyphs… but what if God impressed Moses NOT to remove them?? Then they would remain until this day, the “evidence” that God knew mankind would want left behind! Accordingly, there is a counter-argument for everything that Gordon Franz and any of the other critics write about regarding the details of these discovery sites, one that will always be an interpretation that agrees 100% with Scripture, if people want to hear it…. And BTW, I appreciate that you like the Jebel el-Lawz site, MSH, it shows that you are paying attention to the fact that NONE of the other possible sites have any archeaological evidence whatsoever.
…Oh, and about Gordon Franz’s criticisms about the condition of the underwater landbridge there in the Gulf of Aqaba and how no one could walk up the current 60% slope that is there now (if it really is 60%) — the crossing of the Red Sea took place a long, long time ago — and who’s to say that it hasn’t deteriorated over those years? Especially when the Lord let the walls of water come crashing down on the Egyptians, the violence of those waves could have torn deep gaps into the underwater terrain and ripped away portions of the underwater landbridge!! See, there is a simple counter argument that makes all of Gordon’s negative observations moot…
“Lost Angel,” you don’t understand a single thing about the late Ron Wyatt — I worked with Ron for 10 years and managed his 1st museum — Ron Wyatt passed away in 1999, and he spent the previous 22 years making 100+ trips overseas to work on the things he felt the Lord was impressing him to work on — Ron repeatedly risked his life going into dangerous places to do this work, not so he could make money, but to honor God — he was kidnapped by Kurdish guerillas for 3 weeks in 1991 and nearly died, he and his sons were arrested in Saudi Arabia and jailed for 72 days when another Ark hunter tried to get them killed by falsely reporting they were Israeli spies — Ron Wyatt put every single penny he made into his work, he lived very humbly — so your comments about Ron being an “exploitationist” and a “profiteer” and/or a “fraud” are TOTALLY OUT OF LINE, “Fallen Angel”! These type of crap posts on these discussion forums is why I usually just avoid them — and MSH, I’m rather appalled that you actually post these garbage comments on your forum by people like “Fallen Angel”…
I wish Ron would have risked his research to peer review.
Ron Wyatt DID submit his material to peer review!!! Everything except the documentation about the Ark of the Covenant dig was available and given out to anyone and everyone to see and investigate! In the early 1980’s Ron went to the Smithsonian, but they wouldn’t let him in to even talk with them — Ron Wyatt was a Seventh-day Adventist, and when he presented his Noah’s Ark material to the SDA church in the early 1980’s, the leaders tried to get him to turn control of the work over to them, and when Ron said that he couldn’t do that they decided to “shun” him and ignore him and cut off their support. When the Adventist Church did an article in their official magazine on Ron’s Noah’s Ark discovery, they had a teacher from Andrews University write it and he totally ignored any of Ron’s recent documentation and he wrote the article with from Ron’s “old” book and the article totally panned/downplayed the discovery — even though in 1989 the Turkish government built a Visitors Center there and tried to announce it to the world that Noah’s Ark had been FOUND… but this did not impress that university professor! Why did the church do this? The reason was to avoid “encouraging” people from supporting Ron and sending Ron donations which could have been hundreds of thousands of dollars that would not have then gone into the church’s coffers — and they did the same thing again in 1998 when Ron’s Mt. Sinai discovery was being seen by 40+ million people in America, it was published by Simon & Schuster and reviewed in Newsweek and published in Vanity Fair magazine and shown on Dateline and also on The 700 Club — but the SDA church REFUSED to publish the article I wrote! Two or three men who despised Ron and the discoveries opted NOT to let it be published and/or seen by people who might have helped Ron’s work to be more widely discussed and more widely “peer reviewed”! The 700 Club ran 30-minute interviews with Bob Cornuke in 1998 (who had in essence been lying about who really discovered Jebel el-Lawz), and when we approached The 700 Club and told them that Bob was lying and that Ron Wyatt was the real discoverer, The 700 Club people REFUSED to interview Ron and set the record straight! Because they didn’t want to run a story that might make them look bad! Which again stopped us from getting more widely “peer reviewed”! In 1984 Ron took a coral-covered chariot wheel to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and gave it to them — but they buried it in their basement because the Egyptians didn’t want to put a spotlight on anything that might make the Israelis look good, i.e., when Pharaoh’s entire army died in the Red Sea — so again, “peer reviewing” was prevented! In 1992 when I did Ron’s Sodom & Gomorrah magazine and Ron’s picture was on the front page of the Nashville newspaper, I took it over to the Nashville University to try to get them to interview Ron, but they REFUSED! And then I submitted the S&G material to B.A.R. magazine, they did a review that mocked and ridiculed Ron! Oh yeah, let’s hear it for people being willing to do an honest “peer review” of the discoveries — not in this world!!! Why did people react this way? Let’s remember that Satan is real, and Satan doesn’t want millions of people hearing the Truth about God or seeing these discovery sites that would help win souls to Christ and share the awesome Truth that the Old Testament stories were REAL — and the devil doesn’t want that — so the devil has always been there to whisper in people’s ears to get them to close the door on listening to Ron’s material. Over and over and over again this has happened — people got caught up in rejecting Ron for all sorts of reasons, but the main one was probably that Ron Wyatt did not have a PhD in archaeology… no alphabet soup after his name… and Ron didn’t always do things like professional archaeologists would do them, he just did them the best he could… but people didn’t want to believe that God often uses “the simple things of the world to confound the wise”! It only took a kid with a rock to find the Dead Sea Scrolls — a “simple” child — and a “simple” man named Ron Wyatt who loved the Lord was used by God to find 7 major biblical
discoveries that had eluded “professional” archaeologists for centuries because it was God who wanted them hidden until the End of Time arrived, and God wanted to use a “simple” man. And now Ron is dead and gone, and others will share the discoveries — and anyone who wants to “peer” at them and be blessed is more than welcome, and they can write and say anything they wish about them — but be careful, the God of Heaven is recording every word that is written and/or spoken, and He holds everyone to a very high standard to diligently investigate these things before they start “babbling” their opinions. This is why I say that it is so very important for you, MSH, and everyone else to pay attention to the few who ARE doing a good job of reviewing and sharing the materials like Dr. Lennart Moller in Sweden who works around the Nobel Prize people, and Mahoney Media doing their $2 million film, because this is something that God has arranged!
God is not on the side of those who misuse evidence (that would be called dishonesty). He also doesn’t arrange nonsense.
Your explanations for why no one takes Wyatt seriously amount to the dog eating your homework. I personally know *many* OT scholars and archaeologists who believe the Bible is inerrant, and would desperately like the sort of data Wyatt claims to have found — but they are honest men and women, and won’t touch him with a ten foot pole. I know, since I go to scholarly conferences of all types, and chat with these folks personally. That’s the truth.
@ Jim According to Ron Wyatt, he actually went under Golgotta and found the Ark of Convenant under it; but for some reason was unable to remove or even photograph it – would you believe this to be true? also if his claim was truth; the state Israel would spent billions just to remove it and show it to the world.. it does not matter if its under golgotta.
I do not question Wyatt faith in God; I just question his motivation with the claims he has made and cannot support it because it tantamount to hearsay..
@ Jim If i was gonna tell you the Ark of Covenant is in my garage; wouldn’t you ask for proofs?
Jim,
I have a question for you based on reading your website.
In the section of your site titled “A Serious Message” you basically state that you believe Ron Wyatt was sent by God as a new Moses, divinely appointed to “sit in Moses seat” and thus to authoritatively interpet the Bible.
You also say that Ron, in his humility, never said this himself by left it to those of you who worked with him to discern.
My question is, though Ron never made this claim directly, in your estimation did he think this himself? or did he ever imply it in anyway?
I will respond to these recent 3 posts…
First of all, today is January 6th, 2012 — 30 years ago *TODAY* in 1982 Ron Wyatt said that he got into the cave where he said he found the Ark of the Covenant! 30 years ago today!
“Lost Angel” says that if she found the AofC in her garage, shouldn’t we ask for evidence? And she comments that the Israelis would spend billions to unearth it and show it to the world…
I really wish people would read our websites before posting things like this, because it shows that they are just not paying attention to the reality of the situation over there in Israel or what we have written — for the past 22 years we have been telling people that the AofC is the world’s #1 Most Sensitive Item on this planet, so Ron couldn’t share “everything” — if people really believed that the Jews had it (which they really don’t, God has it and it is under His control), the Jews would try to destroy the mosque on the Temple Mount and attempt to build a 3rd Temple and there would be a huge bloodbath over there in the Middle East! This is why God has let Ron Wyatt appear to be foolish and ridiculed and have millions of people “doubt” the discovery — because God does NOT want that bloodbath to happen over there, God loves both the Israelis and the Moslems and wants them all to come to an understanding of the Truth of Salvation, so it is God who is controlling the timing of when the Ark and the Ten Commandments will be shown to mankind. Ron was a Seventh-day Adventist, and within that belief system Adventists clearly know just when the Ark and 10Cs will be shown to mankind, and we are approaching that time… over the past 30 years something like 16-17 people have been stopped by God when they attempted to jump ahead of God and show the AofC to the world or do something with it that God did not approve of, including 6 Levites dying in the tunnel leading to the Ark when they were attempting to try to move it to a “saver” location around 1996 — Ron told the story of how he was asked to go into the tunnel and remove the bodies, and he did so because the Israelis were afraid to do it themselves… oh, and you want verification of this story? You won’t get it, because the government doesn’t want it known.
For all of you who think verification of Ron’s discoveries should be “easy,” pay attention to how difficult it was to get the Mt. Sinai evidence out into the open — the Saudis didn’t want it shown, and it took YEARS to get that material seen!
Josh asked about my article about Ron Wyatt “sitting in Moses’ seat” — to me this was a common sense observation — if Ron was used of God (I believe he was) to find the 7 major biblical archaeological discoveries that were featured in the museum that I managed for Ron, and nearly all of these things relate to things in Moses’ life, then there is obviously a link between Moses and Ron. And one of the characteristics of Moses was that he was humble, as was Ron. I knew Ron, I worked with him for 10 years — a true servant of God will realize that it is an awesome blessing to be used in an important work for the Lord, and they will constantly remember their shortcomings and flaws and that they really have nothing to brag about — and Ron was just like that, he was a quiet and humble godly Christian man who loved the Lord and just wanted to help people find the Truth of the Bible and be saved. Ron knew he was being used by God, and he was constantly thankful — he never bragged or boasted about it. If he had, he knew he could end up just like those 16-17 people…
MSH, your post is possibly the most upsetting — after everything you have seen and heard, for you to say that Ron “misused evidence” and he “arranged nonsense” and mock Ron that his witness is like the “dog ate my homework” story, I have serious concern for your spiritual perception… You think all of this work should be “easy”??? And there’s no spiritual battle involved with the devil messing with people about it??? And that the Moslems should not hinder the work as it happened in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Egypt, etc.??? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?!? You may go to “scholarly conferences” and “chat with folks personally,” but have you ever gone over into Saudi Arabia or into the back woods of Turkey and risked your life to actually *DO* something for the Lord?!? Until you’ve tried it, you have no business criticising or mocking Ron’s story, because you are just an “armchair critic” — Ron stepped out over 100 times making over 100 trips overseas undertaking these dangerous situations, and it seems you are still at ZERO trips overseas… have you ever gotten YOUR material on national TV? Or in the newspapers? Or out there for “peer review”? Read the story of God’s counsel against sharing your pearls before swine, and maybe you can finally understand what Ron Wyatt was up against.
Happy January 6th, 2012.
spiritual perception is never at odds with handling real data responsibly. There is no moral dichotomy there. Spirituality never requires having to compromise integrity at doing one’s job, and it is the job of researchers to be forthright and not make claims that cannot be verified. Hearsay is not data; and to misrepresent hearsay as data is wrong.
Jim-no one died at the Garden Tomb property during the whole period of Wyatt’s excavations. You are either making things up on the spot or repeating them blindly.
@ MSH this Ron Wyatt kind of remind me of Rael on a talk show: this may be off topic but for your entertainment..
The show is translated in English,
among others he wants to build an ET embassy/airport in Jerusalem, the show is being shared by separatist Pauline Marois and cartoonist/humorist Serge Chapleau, pay attention at rael peeping into a playboy like magazine..
Raëliens: Serious Competitor To Scientology Stupidity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QiBQIyuQn4
@ readers, a complemtary video on rael on late show..
he claims to descent from Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjhEmngYdG8
@ Jim I know very much the political issues in the conflict in Israel Palestine both from the left and rigth perspective.. altough there is extremism involved and its true people are trying to avoid bloodbaths, let me assure you this : the Israeli conspiracy you claim about AofC does not stand ground… AofC discoveryunder Golgotta would capture mankind imagination.. Israelis would not spare any monies to retrieve it..
Sigh… “Lost Angel,” the Israelis HAVE tried to acquire the AofC out of that cave, BUT FAILED — do you really understand what is going on here? Ron said that Jesus’ blood is on the Mercy Seat of the Ark — now, how many Jews are going to be glad to hear that? Do you REALLY understand what is going on here?? If you are a Christian, you know that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and there is no need for animal sacrifices to be done — and what do you think the Jews will want to do if they rebuilt the Temple and put the Ark of the Covenant into it? They would want to reinstitute animal sacrifices… in the Old Testament days on the yearly Day of Atonement the High Priest would kill a goat and sprinkle its blood onto the Mercy Seat of the Ark, that was how sin was atoned for in the Old Testament days… and do you really think that God would approve of today’s Jews sprinkling goat’s blood over the blood of Jesus?!? NEVER, it will NEVER happen be permitted to happen — which is why the Ark of the Covenant will never be given to the Jews to put into the Temple they wish to rebuild.
Now, seeing that you know so much about the Israeli/Palestinian situation, do you know that the Moslems have a belief that when their messiah comes back that he will have the Ark of the Covenant with him? Did you know that? Still think the Ark wouldn’t trigger a massive confrontation between the two belief systems ala a major bloodbath over there? It would, and God does not wish for that to happen.
It doesn’t matter one bit what “people” want to do with the Ark, it only matters what GOD wants to do with the Ark — and unless people get in line with what God wants to do with it, then all other plans and schemes are NOTHING…
Sorry, but there will be no 3rd Temple — God does not wish it to happen, so it won’t — as of the beginning of the New Testament era the Bible tells us that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit — and any sacrifice of animal blood to atone for sin would be an abomination at this time, because the blood of the perfect Lamb of God has been shed for all mankind.
When the Lord says that it is time for the Ark of the Covenant to be shown to mankind, everyone will see what is in that cave — the Ark has always been guarded by 4 angels, and those angels will not let any human being use that Ark for any purpose other than the purpose God intends it to be used for… and that is to be a witness that ALL 10 of God’s Ten Commandments are still binding upon mankind, and the blood on that Mercy Seat will be sampled and tested in one or more labs to prove that it truly *IS* the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and it will prove that He truly was born of a virgin! The 24 chromosomes will be the proof — 23 from Mary, and the one Y sex-determinent chromosome that came from God! SCIENCE will prove the Bible true, far beyond what any other archaeologist has ever done — and when it happens, the people who accept this witness of Jesus/Yeshua being the Son of God and their Creator, Lord & Savior will be saved, and all the others who don’t will be lost because this will be God’s witness against the Mark of the Beast during the End Times of our world.
@ Jim , where in the scriptures do you rely upon that Jesus blood was shed on the Ark and replace the atonement of sacrifices..
I know (not as an expert) that Christ said the blood sacrifice of animals were not needed; i do not see why his blood would be needed for that..
I am an atheist, i hear about god but do not see or feel him..
there is no text that requires this for Jesus’ blood in the New Testament, or that claims it. It’s just Wyatt stuff.
@ Jim, I looked up Ron Wiatt upon his website(s) and a lot of what he is saying is very comparative to white-supramacists stuff found at christiangenea.org linked to this site via comments.
Your claims about AofC, the blood of Christ and about jews just add more religoius hate toward jews (accused to be non-jews on top of this).
I think it overall deny jews their humanity when all humans have the right to exists and that if hate is the common religion; i choose to remain without god.
We all live under Capitalism, a not so perfect system which need to be reformed, it is evil in many forms and like everyone else jews are part of it, same as the germans, french, arabs and blacks.
Who knows your famous mark of the beast could be just racism…
The Bible is comprised of two sections, the first is the Old Testament, and the second is the New Testament — God established a covenant with His people (those who believed in Him) in both the Old and New Testaments. Exodus 24:3-8 and Hebrews 9:19-20 tells us that the OLD Covenant was ratified with the sprinkling of blood and water — and John 19:34 says that the NEW Covenant was ratified with the blood and water from Christ’s side… blood and water, blood and water — Old Covenant, New Covenant…
Every Christian for the past 2,000 years has known that Christ’s blood covers their sins — and New Testament Christians are supposed to be aware of how important the shedding of blood was in the Old Testament animal sacraficial system, and how the sins of all Israel were atoned for on the yearly Day of Atonement when God told them to sprinkle blood onto the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant… ONTO THE ARK… every year, ONTO THE ARK… ONTO THE ARK… ONTO THE ARK… ONTO THE ARK… ONTO THE ARK… ONTO THE ARK… ONTO THE ARK… ONTO THE ARK… ONTO THE ARK… ONTO THE ARK…
So what would be the perfect thing to happen with the blood of Jesus?
Sure, for 2,000 years it did not matter that Christ’s blood could have gone onto the mercy seat of the AofC, all Christians merely accepted that Christ died for them — that’s all that God required — but as we are getting closer and closer to the End of Time it makes perfect sense that God would be sharing more Truth with mankind!
When people hear that Christ’s blood could have gone onto the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, it is a TEST to see if people can spiritually discern this as something that could be “important” — if it did happen, it is one of the most AWESOME events in human history… but out of all fairness, until it is proven to be fact no one is required to believe in it. But after the Ark is reviewed to the world and the blood is tested and shown to the world that it *IS* the blood of Jesus, then it will be required to be believed. But not until then. But if anyone hears the scenario as we share it and they “don’t get it,” then I have serious concerns about their spiritual discernment.
Regarding “racism,” Seventh-day Adventists have NEVER been racists or favored any race — the only thing they have taught is that every single person on this planet is individually responsible for his or her own personal salvation, and that is how God will judge them in the Judgment. When people joined themselves into “groups” with a common belief system, then it is fair to make a determination about their “lost” or “saved” status as a group. There are a billion+ Catholics, a billion+ Moslems, millions of atheists and New Agers and various Protestant denominations — all in big groups — and when Jesus says He is the ONLY way to Heaven and Eternal Life, then we have to inspect the belief systems of all of these groups, and then make a choice as to which one we wish to be a part of — and then when the Lord returns, we will all find out who was “right”! In the Old Testament days the Hebrews were God’s Chosen people, but even then not all Jews were “saved” — and in the New Testament we are told that all believers in Christ are grafted in and are now “spiritual Jews” and heirs to the promise, but again not all professed Christians will be saved…
At the End of Time only one group will be “keeping the commandments of God (all 10), and the faith of Jesus” as the Bible tells us it will be required in Revelation 14:12 — and anyone outside that group will be lost — that’s what it says in the Bible.
@Lost Angel
Lots of people use aspects of Christianity for their own purposes. This is as true today as it has ever been. People use the name of God to justify their own agendas.
You can’t judge something by its abuse. Meaning you can’t come to valid conclusions about Christianity, or God, by looking at those who abuse Christianity, or abuse the name of God for their own ends.
I would also add that the same is true for capitalism. There are many abuses of capitalism, and of course capitalism as with all human systems is imperfect.. but ultimately you can’t judge it by the abuses people make of it.