The truth behind Ron Wyatt's archaeological discoveries.

[Subduction Zone]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but these places don't necessarily have to have existed at all.

They probably didn't. I have seen the "evidence" for them. The examples that I saw were laughable. Natural geologic formations were called "city walls". and the presence of sulfur in sediments that naturally have sulfur in them (the highly saline deposits on flood plains of the Dead Sea" were claimed to be from "brimstone". If one does any background study at all the "finds" become pathetic.

 

[Milton Platt]

They probably didn't. I have seen the "evidence" for them. The examples that I saw were laughable. Natural geologic formations were called "city walls". and the presence of sulfur in sediments that naturally have sulfur in them (the highly saline deposits on flood plains of the Dead Sea" were claimed to be from "brimstone". If one does any background study at all the "finds" become pathetic.

Right. There is also this possibility:
Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, offers this suggestion to Israeli daily Haaretz:

We are probably dealing here with an etiological story, that is, a legend that developed in order to explain a landmark. In other words, people who lived in the later phase of the Iron Age, the later days of the kingdom of Judah, were familiar with the huge ruins of the Early Bronze cities and told a story of how such important places could be destroyed.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So typical!

You pick out >1< little thing to reject all the others, just because you don't like to hear the truth that he was a con.

So go ahead, do some research on Ron Wyatt yourself. There are countless proven examples where he lied about most everything. So do it, go and find all the reputable scientific articles proving his claims are all false. But I know you won't because like all other Christians you would rather believe in lies that "supports" your beliefs than seeing actual facts that it's wrong.

I didn't intentionally work my way through your list of websites to find a weak link, I simply chose to look at one in detail! Since you provided the link, maybe you should have read it more carefully yourself!

But, to be clear, it's not evidence against Ron Wyatt you need to provide, but evidence that the Bible record is inaccurate. Ron Wyatt was looking for evidence that the biblical accounts were literally true, and not a myth.

Some of Ron Wyatt's claims may forever remain unverifiable, and some may be wrong, but others have the support of texts in the Bible, and it is these that interest me. In particular, I am interested in the site of Mount Sinai, which I believe, based on my reading of the Bible, to be in Saudi Arabia, and not on the Sinai peninsula.

 

[sooda]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but these places don't necessarily have to have existed at all.

Lots of hypotheses out there, such as this one:

Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, offers this suggestion to Israeli daily Haaretz:

We are probably dealing here with an etiological story, that is, a legend that developed in order to explain a landmark. In other words, people who lived in the later phase of the Iron Age, the later days of the kingdom of Judah, were familiar with the huge ruins of the Early Bronze cities and told a story of how such important places could be destroyed.

Israel Finkelstein is brilliant. In fact, Israel is turning many excellent, honest archaeologists.

 

[Redemptionsong]

For starters you might research the meaning of goy and gentiles and how those words were used. The Romans didn't trample Jerusalem for 42 months.

Romans did not trample the city of Jerusalem for 42 months. They only trampled Jerusalem during the 5-month siege of Titus in 70 AD.

The Jews successfully kicked the Romans out of Jerusalem in August 66 AD, and they only managed to return to Jerusalem for a few days in November 66 AD when Cestius Gallus unsuccessfully attacked the city. For the next 3.5 years the Romans did not enter Jerusalem.

During the 42 months before the Romans came, Jerusalem was indeed trampled, but it was by a different group of people. In early 68 AD Jesus ben Gamala, one of the former high priests, gave a speech in which he described what was happening to Jerusalem because of the Zealots:

“And this place, which is adored by the habitable world, and honored by such as only know it by report, as far as the ends of the earth, is trampled upon by these wild beasts born among ourselves” (Wars 4.4.3).

Luke 21:24. '..and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.'

This is a reference not to 42 months but to all the years of the Jewish diaspora. During this period, of nearly two thousand years, Jews have not had Jerusalem as their holy city. Gentiles have 'trodden down' the city of Jerusalem.

 

[sooda]

Luke 21:24. '..and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.'

This is a reference not to 42 months but to all the years of the Jewish diaspora. During this period, of nearly two thousand years, Jews have not had Jerusalem as their holy city. Gentiles have 'trodden down' the city of Jerusalem.

Its is a reference to 42 months and is historically incorrect. The Zealots trampled Jerusalem underfoot for 42 months.

The people of the prince to come destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.. That would be Titus whose mistress was Queen Berneice granddaughter of Herod.

The Jews didn't destroy the city or the Temple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't intentionally work my way through your list of websites to find a weak link, I simply chose to look at one in detail! Since you provided the link, maybe you should have read it more carefully yourself!

But, to be clear, it's not evidence against Ron Wyatt you need to provide, but evidence that the Bible record is inaccurate. Ron Wyatt was looking for evidence that the biblical accounts were literally true, and not a myth.

Some of Ron Wyatt's claims may forever remain unverifiable, and some may be wrong, but others have the support of texts in the Bible, and it is these that interest me. In particular, I am interested in the site of Mount Sinai, which I believe, based on my reading of the Bible, to be in Saudi Arabia, and not on the Sinai peninsula.

You have it backwards. You do not get to assume that the Bible is right.

But let's get the easy stuff done first. You do realize that the Noah's Ark story is a myth, or at least I hope you do.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You have it backwards. You do not get to assume that the Bible is right.

But let's get the easy stuff done first. You do realize that the Noah's Ark story is a myth, or at least I hope you do.

I didn't start out believing the Bible was the Word of God. I have reached that conclusion after a lot of careful thought and deliberation. There remain some difficult issues, but I follow what I believe is a consistent approach to biblical exegesis.

I now believe that all the characters found in the Bible, from Adam onwards, should be accepted as real people. I also believe that all the stories surrounding these individuals [in the Tanakh] have a spiritual significance [or type] in relation to Christ.

I gather from the way you use the word 'myth' that you mean the Bible is devoid of all historical reality.

Let me say, if you are to make the claim that the Bible is all myth and man-made deception, you also have some challenging questions to answer!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't start out believing the Bible was the Word of God. I have reached that conclusion after a lot of careful thought and deliberation. There remain some difficult issues, but I follow what I believe is a consistent approach to biblical exegesis.

I now believe that all the characters found in the Bible, from Adam onwards, should be accepted as real people. I also believe that all the stories surrounding these individuals [in the Tanakh] have a spiritual significance [or type] in relation to Christ.

I gather from the way you use the word 'myth' that you mean the Bible is devoid of all historical reality.

Let me say, if you are to make the claim that the Bible is all myth and man-made deception, you also have some challenging questions to answer!

Calling it the "word of God" can be a bit troublesome and even blasphemous. Adam and Eve are a myth. As is Noah and his Ark. Unless you want to claim that God is a liar. That is why a literal interpretation of the Bible is problematic. One has to believe in a lying God to believe that.


And no, the Bible is not devoid of all historical reality. Myths are often based upon real events, though not always. You are aware of Abraham Lincoln. There are both historical accounts of him and mythical accounts. Sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia have good historical accounts of him. Movies, such as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, not so much.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Its is a reference to 42 months and is historically incorrect. The Zealots trampled Jerusalem underfoot for 42 months.

The people of the prince to come destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.. That would be Titus whose mistress was Queen Berneice granddaughter of Herod.

The Jews didn't destroy the city or the Temple.

It strikes me that you are bound to find problems with the accuracy of scripture if you mis-apply the scriptures.

Titus led the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and sack the Temple, but Titus is not the prince of this world as foretold in scripture. To be AN antichrist, in opposition to Christ, is not the same as being THE antichrist. The antichrist is the culmination of evil in a man, and the true instrument of Satan's will.

42 months or one thousand two hundred and sixty days [Rev. 11:3; 12:6] are used as references to the first half [three and a half years] of the period of tribulation. This is a future event.

 

[sooda]

It strikes me that you are bound to find problems with the accuracy of scripture if you mis-apply the scriptures.

Titus led the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and sack the Temple, but Titus is not the prince of this world as foretold in scripture. To be AN antichrist, in opposition to Christ, is not the same as being THE antichrist. The antichrist is the culmination of evil in a man, and the true instrument of Satan's will.

42 months or one thousand two hundred and sixty days [Rev. 11:3; 12:6] are used as references to the first half [three and a half years] of the period of tribulation. This is a future event.

Titus was the Prince of Rome who became emperor and the guy that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple with his Roman garrisons and foreign garrisons of Syrians, Egyptians and Arabs.

42 months aren't years.. 42 months is 3.5 years.

Titus was considered the "Antichrist" in his day..

 

[Audie]

I didn't start out believing the Bible was the Word of God. I have reached that conclusion after a lot of careful thought and deliberation. There remain some difficult issues, but I follow what I believe is a consistent approach to biblical exegesis.

I now believe that all the characters found in the Bible, from Adam onwards, should be accepted as real people. I also believe that all the stories surrounding these individuals [in the Tanakh] have a spiritual significance [or type] in relation to Christ.

I gather from the way you use the word 'myth' that you mean the Bible is devoid of all historical reality.

Let me say, if you are to make the claim that the Bible is all myth and man-made deception, you also have some challenging questions to answer!

The claim of careful thought is belied by your feeble
display in this thread.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Calling it the "word of God" can be a bit troublesome and even blasphemous. Adam and Eve are a myth. As is Noah and his Ark. Unless you want to claim that God is a liar. That is why a literal interpretation of the Bible is problematic. One has to believe in a lying God to believe that.


And no, the Bible is not devoid of all historical reality. Myths are often based upon real events, though not always. You are aware of Abraham Lincoln. There are both historical accounts of him and mythical accounts. Sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia have good historical accounts of him. Movies, such as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, not so much.

You need to explain yourself if you're going to make statements like 'Calling it [the Bible] the "word of God" can be a bit troublesome and even blasphemous.'

You also claim that some of the Bible is myth and some is historical. Where do you draw the line? When does it start to be genuinely historical, in your view?

 

[Audie]

You need to explain yourself if you're going to make statements like 'Calling it [the Bible] the "word of God" can be a bit troublesome and even blasphemous.'

You also claim that some of the Bible is myth and some is historical. Where do you draw the line? When does it start to be genuinely historical, in your view?

None of it is "genuinely " historic as when it describes real events
it is so sketchy that one gets little information.

Some of the "history" such as 'flood" is readily disproved.

Some is problematic, things for which there is no evidence
one way or the other.

 

[Redemptionsong]

None of it is "genuinely " historic as when it describes real events
it is so sketchy that one gets little information.

Some of the "history" such as 'flood" is readily disproved.

Some is problematic, things for which there is no evidence
one way or the other.

Audie, have you ever been to Israel?

 

[sooda]

You need to explain yourself if you're going to make statements like 'Calling it [the Bible] the "word of God" can be a bit troublesome and even blasphemous.'

You also claim that some of the Bible is myth and some is historical. Where do you draw the line? When does it start to be genuinely historical, in your view?

It isn't historical at all. That was never the intention.. Its teaching narrative to teach about Israel's relationship with God. Its a tale of redemption.. Its a morality tale. Its didactic literature. NOT history.

 

[columbus]

It isn't historical at all. That was never the intention.. Its teaching narrative to teach about Israel's relationship with God. Its a tale of redemption.. Its a morality tale. Its didactic literature. NOT history.

I've often wondered.
How many ancient Israelites believed in the literal truth of Scripture like Genesis and Exodus, and how many recognized myth and legends for what they were?

Look at modern American media and it would easy to think everyone believes in Santa Claus. But we don't, not as objective truth. I don't think all ancient people were as gullible as all that.
Tom

 

[sooda]

You need to explain yourself if you're going to make statements like 'Calling it [the Bible] the "word of God" can be a bit troublesome and even blasphemous.'

You also claim that some of the Bible is myth and some is historical. Where do you draw the line? When does it start to be genuinely historical, in your view?

All of Palestine never had more than 700,000 people so there were NO huge armies of Joshua... They didn't destroy any Canaanite cities.. Solomon didn't build much.. King Omri did.. They weren't rich.. didn't have gold mines or copper mines. Most of their history they were under foreign rule.

 

[sooda]

I've often wondered.
How many ancient Israelites believed in the literal truth of Scripture like Genesis and Exodus, and how many recognized myth and legends for what they were?

Look at modern American media and it would easy to think everyone believes in Santa Claus. But we don't, not as objective truth. I don't think all ancient people were as gullible as all that.
Tom

Americans LOVE Pecos Bill, Johnny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan and the Blue Ox, but they don't believe them... My favorites are the Uncle Remus stories about Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox.

 

[Audie]

Audie, have you ever been to Israel?

For a world wide flood?

No, I have not, for all that the q. is of zero
relevance.

FYI, that you wont be capable heeding-
The more you argue for such obvious garbage
as Wyatt, the more you discredit yourself
and the endorsement value you can bring to
anything you believe.