Wyatt's Ark of the Covenent

Hi Jim, What about some biblical references to support this claim Jim?You say the Ark was never looked at by common people, but this is confusing as the Israelites often carried the Ark into battle, as at Jericho for example.Also, the Philistines took possession of the Ark:1 Samuel 4:10-11:So the Philistines fought, and the Israelites were defeated and every man fled to his tent. The slaughter was very great; Israel lost thirty thousand foot soldiers. The ark of God was captured, and Eli's two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, died. In fact, it is claimed that the Philistines took possession of the Ark for at least 7 months (1 Sam 6:1), so how, in all this time, was the Ark NEVER looked upon by common people? A tad ironic Jim. Which references specifically state this Jim?Which is just as supportive for a negative conclusion as it is for a positive one.If Ron was making up stories, as he was apt to do, then of course his Ark would look something like the biblical description.Think about the forgers of the Joash inscription and the James, 'brother of Jesus' ossuary, they made these items look as authentic as possible to fool potential buyers and scholars. Ron would be no different, if he was making it up, it would have to sound like the artifact described in the Bible.Brian.

Hi Jim, I think it would be unrealistic to assume that the Philistines didnt have a little peek at the Ark, given human nature. I see, this is different from what the original post said, but fair enough.Since this thread is about the AofC, I will restrict myself to that artifact.Can you appreciate how certain people are skeptical regarding Ron's alleged discovery of the AofC, I mean he hasnt provided any direct evidence has he?Do we have anything other than his word that he found the AofC?Brian.

A big problem that I see with Ron was the fact that he wasnt an archaeologist. He could have destroyed upteen clues by not following conventional archaeological methods.But, what I find surprising is not the lack of evidence for Ron's claims but the fact that we have had scores of conservative christian archaeologists who have worked in the near east for over a century and none of them have found anything to compare with just one of Ron's finds. Surely you have to admit that it ie a little strange that this 'nurse' wanders in to the near east and finds almost every biblical artifact there is. Now, im not saying he didnt find them, but it does appear a little fortunate, to say the least.Brian.

Hi Archaic, One of the major problems in the debate surrounding the origins of Ancient Israel is that to have an Exodus you need to show that there was an extremely large group of people who referred to themselves as Israelites who were in bondage in Egypt during the 2nd millenium BCE. So far no one, and I include respected scholars such as William Albright, George Wright, and WIlliam Dever, have found any direct evidence of Israelites in Egypt at ths time.But, the fact that these are generic symbols does not support an Israelite group, it could refer to any nomadic or semi-nomadic contemporary group.I think Bill Dever summed the whole debate up nicely when he declared the exodus as being a 'dead issue'. Highly trained scholars have been looking for evidence of the enslavement and Exodus, for well over one hundred years. They haven't found any.So, before anyone assumes that these pictographs have anything to do with the Israelites they have to show some convincing evidence that this group existed in the first place. During this survey, what exactly would you be looking for that would identify these pictographs as Israelite?To do this a very basic question needs to be answered: When did the 'Israelites' begin to think of themselves as Israelite?Cheers.Brian.

Hi Archaic and thanks for the reply.There seems to be a great deal of unsupported statements in your post. I am very familiar with the early 'history' of Israel and find some of your statements quite surprising.For example, you state: Of course the date of the Exodus is still disputed, with the 13th century date appearing to be far better supported than the 15th century date. However, which gentile nations recognised Israel as a nation during Saul's time? Support for this, in an historical enquiry, would need to come from outside of the Bible as internal references would simply be a circular argument.One problem here is that we have no external archaeological or epigraphical evidence that there ever was a King Saul, so a reference or two would be very welcome thanks.Also, you inform us that: We have two unsupported claims here Archaic. Could you give me any references from Egyptian sources that support the claim that Egyptians called the 'Israelites' Hebrews? As far as I am aware, there are no Egyptian references to Hebrews. Secondly, there is no direct evidence of Israeites slaves in Egypt either, this is a basic fact of the debate.Finally: Again, this is completely unsupported, I would argue that it is only during the time of David (10th century BCE)that we see any signs of what may possibly be the beginnings of an Israelite nation. It is only during this time that we see the beginnings of a central polity, the cropping up of fortifications and trade routes. Whether these have anything to do with David or not (and whether there actually was a David) is another matter. The giving of the Torah may simply be an invention of a later Israelite society, it is not unheard of for a nation to invent stories about the past.But, there is a lot in you post that is contrary to what the available evidence tells us. There is the possibility that you may have access to information that I haven't studied and I would appreciate it if you could give me a reference or two so that I could investigate your claims for myself.Thanks.Brian.

Hi Arach, The Hebrew/apiru/abiru connection was broken almost 70 years ago. In 1939 it was shown that the consonantal element of the word ‘ha-bi-ru’, had to be recognised as '-p-r, which meant that all etymologies dependent on the root HBR were excluded, and corresponding attempts with ‘BR and the ‘ibrim became uncertain.The word ‘Apiru itself is not of Hebrew origin, and, of course, the Hebrew word for ‘Hebrew’ is ibrim. The origin of the word itself is not known for certain as there is no certainty as to the language (NW Semitic, Hurrian, etc.) or the verbal root from which the sociopolitical technical term (‘Apiru) was originally drawn (Gottwald, N. K. (1979) The tribes of Yahweh : a sociology of the religion of liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E, SCM Press, London, page 41).The general characteristic of the ‘Apiru turns out to be sociopolitical rather than ethnic or economic. They cannot be characterised as ethnically homogeneous in any one location, nor are they tied to any single economic activity throughout the Near East. In short, an ‘Apiru could have been a Hittite, Hurrian, Phoenician, or almost any other nationality of the ancient near east, they were not identified by their ethnicity, in other words the term ‘Apiru denotes a social stratum.Since the term ‘Apiru has been shown to refer to a social stratum, the equation of the term with the Hebrews is untenable as the Hebrews are said to be an ethnic group. More problematic for the equation is the fact that the Bible suggests that the whole of ‘Israel’ came out of Egypt, however, the ‘Apiru are now attested to in a large variety of sources from different times and places. For example,1. In Mesopotamia, they are in evidence through the periods of Ur III, 1 Babylon, and after; in the Nuzi texts (fifteenth century) they play an especially prominent role.2. Documents from Mari (eighteenth century) and Alalakh (seventeenth and fifteenth centuries) attest their presence in Upper Mesopotamia throughout the patriarchal age.3. In Anatolia, the Cappadocian texts (nineteenth century) knew them, as did those of Boghazkoy (fourteenth century).4. They are also mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts (fourteenth century).5. Egyptian documents of the Empire period (fifteenth to twelfth century) refer to them, both as foes and rebels in Asia and as bondsmen in Egypt.6. The Amarna letters (fourteenth century), where they appear in Palestine and adjoining areas as disturbers of the peace, are the best witness to them of all. (Bright, S. J. (1972) A history of Israel, SCM Press, London. page 92)John Bright goes on to conclude that obviously, a people found all over western Asia from the end of the third millennium to about the eleventh century cannot lightly be identified with the ancestors of Israel! (Ibid: 92).The 'apiru simply wasn't an ethnic identifier, it could not have been equated with Hebrew. Thanks for the link. It is interesting how selective scholars can be when they are hoping to sell books. I found the Rohl quote particularly enlightening. Thanks again.Brian. {Added some blank lines. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-04-2005 01:17 PM

Can anyone have a go at answering these? Brian.

HI Arch,I realise that you may be busy, and that is not a problem. But just in case you have some free time could you answer this question about the petroglyphs? What would identify these petroglyphs as 'Israelite', what is it that would conivince you, during your primary survey, that they were drawn by Israelites?I would appreciate if anyone else could answer this question as well, as it would be very helpful in regard to something I am reasearching.Cheers.Brian.

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

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

To claim to have found so many biblical artifacts, and to present so little (and worthless) evidence actually takes some doing.Every single claim Wyatt made is a mess, nothing at all can be verified with any degree of certainty. Where on earth are the enquiry skills of the people who believe this nonsense?There's gullible and there's gullible, but the Wyatt stuff is simply childish.A lot of people making money off it I bet.Brian.

From HERE Can anyone make sense of this?I have read it about ten times and Ron seems to be contradicting himself.Did he or did he not take the ‘tables’ of stone out of the Ark? Q. I have heard that you took the tables of stone out of the Ark?

​

A. No. This is something that has amazed me. I can talk to a whole audience and I think we have a perfect understanding of what I have said, and then somebody will misquote me. I never said that. I said that the angel told me to take the tables of stone out of the Ark of the Covenant, and the four of them took hold of the corners of the Mercy Seat and lifted it so that I could get to the tables of stone. I took them out, backed away while they set the Mercy Seat back down on the Ark. I just stood there wondering what to do. The angel came and took the tables and put them on a stone shelf in the chamber. And that is where they are at this point in time, that is also where the video is.Anyone any idea what Ron was on about?Brian

I have to start wondering who is actually crazy here. Poor old Ron who dreams all this stuff up, or the poor unfortunate souls who believe everything that Ron said.It does say a lot about how different people accept different levels of evidence. I cannot imagine anyone that I know who would entertain Ron's claims for a second, yet we get an alleged impartial university professor who thinks that Ron was a genius and swallows all Ron's material hook line and sinker. I can only imagine that Moller has went a little senile since he gained his doctorate.Then this environmental medicine professor, who informs us that he is not a theologian, historian or an archaeologist, informs the specialists in the academic world that Moses was actually pharaoh Thutmosis II because Thutmosis had a hooked nose! Deary me, no wonder the happy clappy brigade are creaming themsleves when a university professor announces that the Exodus happened and we have the evidence for it. But the audience do not have a clue what evidence actually is, so Moller will rake in a lot of money for his retirement, maybe he isn't so daft after all.A fool and his money, as they say.Brian.PS, you should read more of the material in the link, Ron would have been a hoot at parties.

Cheers Paul, I see what it is now.It would have been obvious if Ron had said " yes, I did take them out of the box, but I didn't keep them."As they say, all language is ambiguous.Brian.

I suppose we should feel a little sorry for a guy who was clearly mentally unstable, I mean it is sad in a way, and it really isnt Ron's fault that so many people are stupid enough to buy into this.But, I have been reading about Ron most of the morning and that page is hilarious.Check this:"Our (sic) of his mouth came words that he did not speak. They were, "That's Jeremiah's Grotto. The Ark of the Covenant is in there." This startled Ron for he felt goose bumps go up and down his back. He knew that either God or the enemy had done this, which one he did not know. His friend the director said, "That's wonderful. We will provide you with a place to stay, food, and do your laundry for you."The unnamed director, based solely on Ron's ventriliquism, is happy to provide everything Ron he thinks Ron would need. Now, this director doesn't immediately think about permits, or labour, or equipment, he apparently thinks about where Ron is going to stay and that he is well fed. Then he looks at Ron's strides and discovers that after the 'voice from nowhere' he best provide a laundry service.Brian.