The truth behind Ron Wyatt's archaeological discoveries.

[exchemist]

Biblical myth? So you began your investigation without bias?

Every serious religious and historical scholar has treated the story of Noah and the Flood as a myth, for ages now. Have you never heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

 

[columbus]

That's fair comment. But in the case of the Holy Ark, there is biblical evidence, and a tradition, that supports the idea that Jeremiah was involved in hiding the Ark.

There's also evidence for Yeti and Nessie.

It's weak. But stronger than that for the modern existence for The Ark.

I don't much doubt that the Ark existed millennia ago. It's quite plausible that an ancient group of nomads had such a thing.

But it's far less plausible that it still exists, much less that Wyatt found it and didn't bring it home.

Much more plausible is the premise that Wyatt learned how to manipulate gullible people with vague promises. That's been going on for centuries.
Tom

 

[Redemptionsong]

How do you know that?
Your school might not have paid him, but putting it on his resume might very well have boosted his income


That's the problem with conman liars. You never really know why they're doing what they do or saying what they say.
Like Trump.
Tom

What evidence do you have that he was a liar? There's a big difference between people intentionally deceiving others, and people failing to interpret archaeological evidence correctly, as, maybe, in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah.

My guess is that to finance his expeditions to Israel and elsewhere, it was necessary for him to raise funds through church meetings and talks, books, videos etc. I don't think this makes him an extortioner.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Every serious religious and historical scholar has treated the story of Noah and the Flood as a myth, for ages now. Have you never heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

And at what point, for you, does the Bible stop being a myth and start being a literal history?

 

[columbus]

What evidence do you have that he was a liar?

He didn't actually produce The Ark.

Sometimes, lack of evidence is solid evidence.
Tom

 

[Redemptionsong]

I am relying on Rationalwiki to expose a pseudoscientist. For that, I find it a good source. I also look people up on the Encyclopedia of American Loons. If somebody's name appears in either, it is good sign not to take them seriously. What is amusing in this case is that even "Answers in Genesis" is suspicious of Wyatt!

But if you prefer, here is the Wiki entry on Wyatt: Ron Wyatt - Wikipedia
The guy has no credibility.

Whether Ron Wyatt is regarded as having credibility or not, a number of the places he regarded as sites of special biblical interest remain sites of special biblical interest even after his death.

Do you ever study the Bible? Do you ever wonder whether these places exist and can be located?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical myth? So you began your investigation without bias?

Since the Exodus has been shown to never have happened it is not a bias to approach the investigation with that knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether Ron Wyatt is regarded as having credibility or not, a number of the places he regarded as sites of special biblical interest remain sites of special biblical interest even after his death.

Do you ever study the Bible? Do you ever wonder whether these places exist and can be located?

Many places in myth are based upon real locations. Troy was a real city. Do you think that Mars, the God of War, was involved in the attack on it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence do you have that he was a liar? There's a big difference between people intentionally deceiving others, and people failing to interpret archaeological evidence correctly, as, maybe, in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah.

My guess is that to finance his expeditions to Israel and elsewhere, it was necessary for him to raise funds through church meetings and talks, books, videos etc. I don't think this makes him an extortioner.

His pictures of "chariot wheels" makes it a slam dunk.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every serious religious and historical scholar has treated the story of Noah and the Flood as a myth, for ages now. Have you never heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

I think that the discussion is about the Ark of the Covenant. But you are not too far off since the Exodus is also thought to be a myth and good old Ron is the only person to claim to have found both Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[exchemist]

And at what point, for you, does the Bible stop being a myth and start being a literal history?

The story of the biblical Flood, like the two conflicting stories of Genesis, has been treated as allegorical rather than literal for a very long time, with good reason. It seems to be very similar to the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which also originated in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. It also goes without saying that the notion of a worldwide flood is scientifically ridiculous.

There are some interesting rival theories as to whether it references some folk memory of an actual flood disaster. The most commonly mentioned is a flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates, but some have speculated that the inrush of the Mediterranean into the basin that is now the Black Sea, at the end of the Ice Age might be responsible. I also personally quite like the idea of sea level rise in the Persian Gulf, which was dry land down to the Straits of Hormuz until the ice started melting - someone has calculated the sea advanced at a rate of 1 metre per day for centuries, drowning farm land and villages as it went.

 

[exchemist]

Whether Ron Wyatt is regarded as having credibility or not, a number of the places he regarded as sites of special biblical interest remain sites of special biblical interest even after his death.

Do you ever study the Bible? Do you ever wonder whether these places exist and can be located?

Sure, I am interested in scholarly archaeology on the issue of the bible stories. But as @Subduction Zone is already pointing out, many of the stories do not stand up as historically accurate.

Since Genesis has been treated as allegorical since 200AD, it is not setting any shocking precedent to treat other stories in the OT in the same manner.

 

[Redemptionsong]

He didn't actually produce The Ark.

Sometimes, lack of evidence is solid evidence.
Tom

But, as I said before, he found a location for Mount Horeb in Saudi Arabia that matches the biblical evidence far better than the traditional site in Egypt. So, to suggest that all his finds were without evidence is unfair. He studied the scriptures, and used various documentary sources and archaeological finds to build his case.

Maybe, rather than dismissing someone on the basis of wiki, you should actually look at his claims and the evidence he used to support these claims.

In the meantime, I am quite sure there are many viewers of this thread who do believe that Noah existed, that his descendants were real; and that Moses existed, and that the Ark is still hidden somewhere in Jerusalem!

 

[exchemist]

I think that the discussion is about the Ark of the Covenant. But you are not too far off since the Exodus is also thought to be a myth and good old Ron is the only person to claim to have found both Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant.

Yes you are right. I was misled by Wyatt's first expedition, which was rather idiotically inspired by the shape of rock strata on top of a mountain, that he thought looked like a boat.

 

[exchemist]

But, as I said before, he found a location for Mount Horeb in Saudi Arabia that matches the biblical evidence far better than the traditional site in Egypt. So, to suggest that all his finds were without evidence is unfair. He studied the scriptures, and used various documentary sources and archaeological finds to build his case.

Maybe, rather than dismissing someone on the basis of wiki, you should actually look at his claims and the evidence he used to support these claims.

In the meantime, I am quite sure there are many viewers of this thread who do believe that Noah existed, that his descendants were real; and that Moses existed, and that the Ark is still hidden somewhere in Jerusalem!

If there are such readers, then it is our job to disabuse them. Christianity is not well served by childish and ignorant interpretations of the bible. It makes Christians look like fools, and with good reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But, as I said before, he found a location for Mount Horeb in Saudi Arabia that matches the biblical evidence far better than the traditional site in Egypt. So, to suggest that all his finds were without evidence is unfair. He studied the scriptures, and used various documentary sources and archaeological finds to build his case.

Maybe, rather than dismissing someone on the basis of wiki, you should actually look at his claims and the evidence he used to support these claims.

In the meantime, I am quite sure there are many viewers of this thread who do believe that Noah existed, that his descendants were real; and that Moses existed, and that the Ark is still hidden somewhere in Jerusalem!

Cherry picking a site does not mean that he found a site that matches the "biblical evidence". Tell me, what caused the color of the mountain in the myth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes you are right. I was misled by Wyatt's first expedition, which was rather idiotically inspired by the shape of rock strata on top of a mountain, that he thought looked like a boat.

Understandable since there are two different "Arks" claimed to have been found by Ron. The Indiana Jones of fake archaeologists.

 

[Spartan]

Deniers of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah should review the following archaeological report:

Associates for Biblical Research - The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah

Excerpt:

"Conclusion

When the archaeological, geographical and epigraphic evidence is reviewed in detail, it is clear that the infamous cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have now been found. What is more, this evidence demonstrates that the Bible provides an accurate eyewitness account of events that occurred southeast of the Dead Sea over 4,000 years ago."

 

[exchemist]

Understandable since there are two different "Arks" claimed to have been found by Ron. The Indiana Jones of fake archaeologists.

I have Wyatt in the same mental category as Charles Berlitz and Erich von Däniken.

 

[exchemist]

Deniers of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah should review the following archaeological report:

Associates for Biblical Research - The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah

Excerpt:

"Conclusion

When the archaeological, geographical and epigraphic evidence is reviewed in detail, it is clear that the infamous cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have now been found. What is more, this evidence demonstrates that the Bible provides an accurate eyewitness account of events that occurred southeast of the Dead Sea over 4,000 years ago."

In what does any of this lend support to the idea of Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt?