The truth behind Ron Wyatt's archaeological discoveries.

[Subduction Zone]

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."

You do realize that is not a real archaeological site, don't you?

Sadly he probably does not.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

To say that Genesis has been treated as allegorical since 200AD is a nonsense! The city of Jerusalem exists today and appears in scripture from very early times. Abraham is said to have met Melchizedek, the priest and king of Salem. That would have been around 1000 years BCE. Even if you think the encounter was allegorical, the city was not! The city existed and continued to exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

It does not even support his claim since it is an extremely biased site. One might as well link Breitbart to "prove" Trump innocent.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'll check in again tomorrow!

 

[Subduction Zone]

To say that Genesis has been treated as allegorical since 200AD is a nonsense! The city of Jerusalem exists today and appears in scripture from very early times. Abraham is said to have met Melchizedek, the priest and king of Salem. That would have been around 1000 years BCE. Even if you think the encounter was allegorical, the city was not! The city existed and continued to exist.

New York city being real does not prove that Spiderman is real.

Once again, myths are often based upon real locations. The fact that Jerusalem is real does not help you.

 

[Spartan]

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

The report didn't mention it, but you're welcome to submit it to prayer and request confirmation.

 

[Spartan]

Here's another one skeptics love to deny - the Exodus from Egypt.

So here's IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

 

[columbus]

So, to suggest that all his finds were without evidence is unfair.

I'm not saying that all his findings were without evidence.
The fact that you don't understand that is telling.

I'm saying that the evidence for his findings is extremely weak. Weaker than the evidence for many other things. Things you don't believe, because the evidence is weak.
Like Nessie and Yeti, to name a couple. Another is the fairies in my grandpa's place.
Tell me why you believe what you do, but not those things, and you'll start sounding a little more credible to me than you do now. I don't think you can.

You're not the first person to make claims like this, to me. I've lived in a seriously Christian place my entire life! If you've got something new, please tell me what it is. If you just think I haven't heard this before, you are very much mistaken.
Tom

 

[PruePhillip]

Ron Wyatt was a con artist to lived by lying and taking money from innocent believers. WTF are you doing?

Certainly I haven't read any of his work, but he sounds like a con.
He's done biblical studies a bad name if he did. It's take people a
long time to really believe there was a House of David, an Isaiah,
Shiloh and it's law of Moses, Solomon's gates and such - and then
you get guys like this come along with bogus claims to reset the
skeptics clock.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To say that Genesis has been treated as allegorical since 200AD is a nonsense! The city of Jerusalem exists today and appears in scripture from very early times. Abraham is said to have met Melchizedek, the priest and king of Salem. That would have been around 1000 years BCE. Even if you think the encounter was allegorical, the city was not! The city existed and continued to exist.

Stories of Spider-Man are set in New York City, but the existence of Spider-Man is not established simply because the city is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

New York city being real does not prove that Spiderman is real.

Once again, myths are often based upon real locations. The fact that Jerusalem is real does not help you.

Drat! You beat me to it. Foiled again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Drat! You beat me to it. Foiled again.

I have changed my mind. New York City does prove that Spiderman is real. I always was a big fan.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have changed my mind. New York City does prove that Spiderman is real. I always was a big fan.

You couldn't be more wrong. Stan Lee, the greatest true believer, speaks to me and Spider-Man proves that New York is real.

You obviously have succumbed to the beguiling ways of the Green Goblin. Nuff said.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have changed my mind. New York City does prove that Spiderman is real. I always was a big fan.

Big fan too. Been reading Spidey tales since I was a kid. There must be some powerful mutagens in the NYC area.

 

[blü 2]

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.

If someone claims to have found the Ark, what test will authenticate the find? What will distinguish the Ark from some very old wooden chest, or box for scrolls, or whatever?

Will it still work to allow one-on-one communication with Yahweh?

If it doesn't, will that prove it's not the Ark?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If someone claims to have found the Ark, what test will authenticate the find? What will distinguish the Ark from some very old wooden chest, or box for scrolls, or whatever?

Will it still work to allow one-on-one communication with Yahweh?

If it doesn't, will that prove it's not the Ark?

Have you not seen the documentaries? Opening it will melt the face right off a Nazis head.

Now I've gone and done it. Invoked Godwin. We're all doomed. Doomed! Forgive me.

 

[blü 2]

Have you not seen the documentaries? Opening it will melt the face right off a Nazis head.

Now now! You know it doesn't work if you shut your eyes. (And in real emergencies you pull the blanket over your head too.)

Now I've gone and done it. Invoked Godwin. We're all doomed. Doomed! Forgive me.

Is "D*mn you! D*mn you to hell!" from Proverbs or Planet of the Apes? I can never remember.

 

[sun rise]

Evidence supporting Jebel el Lawz as the site of Mount Horeb (in Saudi Arabia) is probably stronger than the evidence for the traditional Mount Sinai location in Egypt.

Cite a reputable archeological journal or web site and I'll pay attention.

 

[sooda]

Here's another one skeptics love to deny - the Exodus from Egypt.

So here's IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

The writing on the inscription is questionable. Egypt controlled both Sinai and Canaan at the time of the fictional Exodus.

 

[sooda]

Evidence supporting Jebel el Lawz as the site of Mount Horeb (in Saudi Arabia) is probably stronger than the evidence for the traditional Mount Sinai location in Egypt.

Wyatt was NEVER in Saudi Arabia.