See, here's the thing, Teach. Most people, myself included, just aren't interested in investing 51 minutes in a clip they know nothing about. It would be like a toothpaste commercial that just says "Buy our toothpaste. It's good."....Not enough information...know what I mean?
"Ronald Eldon Wyatt (1933 – August 4, 1999) was an adventurer and former nurse anesthetist noted for advocating the Durupınar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church..."
"While Wyatt won a devoted following from some fundamentalist Christians, he was not considered credible by professional archaeologists and biblical scholars."
I don't think it contributes to anything remotely "doctrinal" to drop links to videos without any reference to what's in them or what the interest of the person posting them is.
Why should I care if someone else doesn't care enough to at least offer a paragraph or two.
It's assumed that this isn't for sharing videos, it's for discussing topics. If this person was interested in having a discussion about ideas and beliefs they'd state them. Instead it's these videos.
I'm done being courteous. Look for a New Me, accept no substitutes!
It's no skin off my nose either way. I was interested in engaging in conversation - at first. But Yahweh hisself would get his panties in a twist at being made to appear so obtuse and absolutely inexcusably BORING as those dwads in those videos who drone on and on and on and...
The best ones are the ones who use those voice de dibblers, that disguise your voice so "no one" can recognize you.
So - there's a vidiot who uses a network connection to post a series of 90 minutes videos ONLINE where the whole world can see them, and have a library of these snooze fests, subscribers, and email addresses....
And they disguise their voice so no one can find out who they are.....
Right there - that's all I need. That's too dumb to take seriously.
Intentions might be good, I accept that. But 1/2 a bun short of a corn dog - yes.
Wyatt is a guy who looks, finds things and says they're what he was looking for. He's dead for a while now, I assume from his work that I have read that he meant well but I would simply say he did not maintain enough of discipline in his work. He wanted to find what he was looking for so he did. A lot of us do that with a lot of things.
Noah's ark - the loose language of the bible has been developed into the "flood story" where everyone and everything on earth was destroyed by a flood so massive and deep it allowed Noah to beach his boat on - supposedly - Mount Arafat, which is up to 17,000 feet high. Forget the boat - that's a LOT OF WATER, covering the earth. Think about it - the entire earth covered by what - say 10, 000 feet of water or more... Think about the storms we've seen in the last 25 years around the globe, HUGE amounts of rain and water, and the terrible devestation caused by them. That's light drizzle according to what Genesis is interpreted to say. According to the story woven about the flood, the entire planet becomes an ocean, basically. A big lake with a few mountain tops poking up through it by the time it's over. And this all happens in 40 days - how much water has to fall in an hour to do that?
The method of destruction doesn't match the requirements for starters - you don't need that much rain to kill everything. Heck, we get an hour of hard rain and people start driving like nut cakes. Considering the amount of rain you would have to dump in an hour and what that would do to the people, animals and property getting dumped on - it would take much less time to kill everything on the earth.
Except the fish of course, who I would assume did fine, at least the ones who could stay down and move around the incredible amounts of earth that would have shifted as a result of the impact of all that water for 40 days.
That affect of the rain destroying what it hit and the earth mixing with water is what's really scarey and again, unreasonable - the earth would have become not like a pacific ocean or a Lake Tahoe, but a huge puddle of mud. Most of the death would be caused by the exposure to such an incredible onslaught of water hitting you, non stop, for 40 days and then everything and everyone would have been floating in a brown sludge. But I'd assume that everything was dead within 10 days, 15? at the rate many think it fell - after that it would be over kill, literally.
40 days and nights of rain is one thing - enough rain to cover the earth as Genesis states today - for 40 days and nights - whole nother deal. It's the details and the math that crunches it - so I would assume that the record's been messed with over the millenia, or just represents a massive morality tale, with some likely tags to reality. There is more feasible history and evidence of a large flood occuring in that area of the world and there being a kind of history that's similar that may be true.
For those who say "well, it's in the Bible so it must be true" - they're being silly. Yes it's in the Bible, what does it really say, what does it mean, how should it be understood? I think theology has talked itself into a corner on a lot of things and is just stuck there.
But either way, it doesn't have to be the pin upon which everything else hangs on.
Wyatt proposes something along the lines of the blood of Jesus falling through a crack in the earth that happened after his crucifixion when the earth "shook" and that soaked into an area below that spot where the ark of the covenant supposedly was. I think - I've read these accounts before.
There's a lot of pieces that have to come together for that to even be remotely possible.
It's less a matter of it being true in my opinion - because what Wyatt does is seek existing evidence, artifacts, historical evidence of past events we read of in the Bible.
That's fine, and a very worthy endeavor. But I can't require that there be evidence today or that there be artifacts for me to find. LIke with the blood of Jesus stuff - it would be interesting but - so what? It's not going to take the records of the gospels and make them all true. Nor if ancient wood is found on a mountain. Boat? Fine. What's that really prove though?
A quick glance at the assorted web sites seilling stuff doesn't offer the kind of validated documentation I hoped to find.
I am somewhat dubious however of claims that can only be really understood by buying a DVD, tape or book. The videos are just snooze fests. ZZZzzzzz.
What the world teaches, that Yeshua's blood on a cross is good enough. Yeshua's blood needed to have fallen on that ark, the purification sacrifice? Not a troll, just trying to learn.
Ron Wyatt did not produce evidence of that happening, his claims did not prove that his blood sampling was the blood of Jesus.
He was looking for something he intended to find, one way or another apparently. His "proof" did not prove that was the blood of Jesus Christ. He wants it to be, fine.
Ron Wyatt did not produce evidence of that happening, his claims did not prove that his blood sampling was the blood of Jesus.
He was looking for something he intended to find, one way or another apparently. His "proof" did not prove that was the blood of Jesus Christ. He wants it to be, fine.
I see what your saying, but Yeshua's blood had to have fallen on that Ark somehow, not on wood?
The atonement by blood sprinkled on the ark, and that being the actual blood of Jesus Christ physically on the ark lid itself - I'm not sure that has to be the case.
Christianity is based on a fulfillment of the offering done in a way that would be "once and done", not a continuation of previous ritual but a final act of sacrifice and offering, the atonement of the sacrificial lamb - Jesus.
As I understand it there is an element to that offering of it being in real time, being done before God, "sprinkled", put forth in a way that it's clear that it's a real sacrifice and a real offering.
We know that according to the records set forth in the gospels that did occur, in that Jesus died and His blood was shed, literally and in real time.
The "offering" of it was being done in a vastly greater context than the day and people involved - Romans, Jews, followers, enemies, observers, all the participants were performing their actions completely different and contrary to what a Temple priest did when offering the blood at the ark. There was no singleness of purpose to make the death of Jesus Christ an "offering" of any kind.
That's very telling to me - it fits with the burial and time of Jesus in the grave, the 3 days and 3 nights. He died and was buried. But to the people he wasn't killed to make a sacrifice before God, and while He was dead no one anticipated the resurrection.
These events were clearly an engineering and execution of a Godly intent and purpose - nobody knew what was going to happen next, they abandoned any hope of a future with Jesus and were themselves distraught until He revealed Himself to them.
Soooooo - could it have happened that way, where the blood did actually do that? I don't know, other stuff comes to mind but gotta run for now.
The atonement by blood sprinkled on the ark, and that being the actual blood of Jesus Christ physically on the ark lid itself - I'm not sure that has to be the case.
Christianity is based on a fulfillment of the offering done in a way that would be "once and done", not a continuation of previous ritual but a final act of sacrifice and offering, the atonement of the sacrificial lamb - Jesus.
As I understand it there is an element to that offering of it being in real time, being done before God, "sprinkled", put forth in a way that it's clear that it's a real sacrifice and a real offering.
We know that according to the records set forth in the gospels that did occur, in that Jesus died and His blood was shed, literally and in real time.
The "offering" of it was being done in a vastly greater context than the day and people involved - Romans, Jews, followers, enemies, observers, all the participants were performing their actions completely different and contrary to what a Temple priest did when offering the blood at the ark. There was no singleness of purpose to make the death of Jesus Christ an "offering" of any kind.
That's very telling to me - it fits with the burial and time of Jesus in the grave, the 3 days and 3 nights. He died and was buried. But to the people he wasn't killed to make a sacrifice before God, and while He was dead no one anticipated the resurrection.
These events were clearly an engineering and execution of a Godly intent and purpose - nobody knew what was going to happen next, they abandoned any hope of a future with Jesus and were themselves distraught until He revealed Himself to them.
Soooooo - could it have happened that way, where the blood did actually do that? I don't know, other stuff comes to mind but gotta run for now.
I know when Yahweh raised Yeshua from among the dead, that Yahweh gave Yeshua that life (John 5:26) in a new body. Yeshua told them that he was going to get that life, they knew they had a some kind future with him, but they had a hard time understanding what he was saying about that life he was going to get.
I always thought that Yeshua, when Yahweh raised him from among the dead, went into heaven itself and put his blood on the ark that up their somehow. It seems Yahweh worked it out to be a sacrifice after all, the people did not know that Yeshua's blood would have fallen on that ark, they just thought they were killing the man.
What a crazy story for this Ron dude to make up, Yeshua's blood had to put on something other then wood or the ground?
Recommended Posts
waysider
See, here's the thing, Teach. Most people, myself included, just aren't interested in investing 51 minutes in a clip they know nothing about. It would be like a toothpaste commercial that just says "Buy our toothpaste. It's good."....Not enough information...know what I mean?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We've mentioned that before, and he doesn't get it.
As usual, I've just gone elsewhere for an idea of what's in the video.
It's about Ron Wyatt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt
"Ronald Eldon Wyatt (1933 – August 4, 1999) was an adventurer and former nurse anesthetist noted for advocating the Durupınar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church..."
"While Wyatt won a devoted following from some fundamentalist Christians, he was not considered credible by professional archaeologists and biblical scholars."
etc. etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Troll.
By any other name...
I don't think it contributes to anything remotely "doctrinal" to drop links to videos without any reference to what's in them or what the interest of the person posting them is.
Why should I care if someone else doesn't care enough to at least offer a paragraph or two.
It's assumed that this isn't for sharing videos, it's for discussing topics. If this person was interested in having a discussion about ideas and beliefs they'd state them. Instead it's these videos.
I'm done being courteous. Look for a New Me, accept no substitutes!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Personally, i'm not opposed to links/videos, as long as they're used to augment the conversation, not substitute for it.
Oh, what the hell. I'll make an exception for THIS one....
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Ha! Well, there's always exceptions.
It's no skin off my nose either way. I was interested in engaging in conversation - at first. But Yahweh hisself would get his panties in a twist at being made to appear so obtuse and absolutely inexcusably BORING as those dwads in those videos who drone on and on and on and...
The best ones are the ones who use those voice de dibblers, that disguise your voice so "no one" can recognize you.
So - there's a vidiot who uses a network connection to post a series of 90 minutes videos ONLINE where the whole world can see them, and have a library of these snooze fests, subscribers, and email addresses....
And they disguise their voice so no one can find out who they are.....
Right there - that's all I need. That's too dumb to take seriously.
Intentions might be good, I accept that. But 1/2 a bun short of a corn dog - yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
considering
the Ark of the Covenant
and
Noah's Ark
those who look for it
in what direction should one look?
or be forever without answers?
were the things inside them real?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Good point, cman. Maybe The Ark was not a physical entity but symbolic. Points like this are lost with the fundamentalist school of thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Wyatt is a guy who looks, finds things and says they're what he was looking for. He's dead for a while now, I assume from his work that I have read that he meant well but I would simply say he did not maintain enough of discipline in his work. He wanted to find what he was looking for so he did. A lot of us do that with a lot of things.
Noah's ark - the loose language of the bible has been developed into the "flood story" where everyone and everything on earth was destroyed by a flood so massive and deep it allowed Noah to beach his boat on - supposedly - Mount Arafat, which is up to 17,000 feet high. Forget the boat - that's a LOT OF WATER, covering the earth. Think about it - the entire earth covered by what - say 10, 000 feet of water or more... Think about the storms we've seen in the last 25 years around the globe, HUGE amounts of rain and water, and the terrible devestation caused by them. That's light drizzle according to what Genesis is interpreted to say. According to the story woven about the flood, the entire planet becomes an ocean, basically. A big lake with a few mountain tops poking up through it by the time it's over. And this all happens in 40 days - how much water has to fall in an hour to do that?
The method of destruction doesn't match the requirements for starters - you don't need that much rain to kill everything. Heck, we get an hour of hard rain and people start driving like nut cakes. Considering the amount of rain you would have to dump in an hour and what that would do to the people, animals and property getting dumped on - it would take much less time to kill everything on the earth.
Except the fish of course, who I would assume did fine, at least the ones who could stay down and move around the incredible amounts of earth that would have shifted as a result of the impact of all that water for 40 days.
That affect of the rain destroying what it hit and the earth mixing with water is what's really scarey and again, unreasonable - the earth would have become not like a pacific ocean or a Lake Tahoe, but a huge puddle of mud. Most of the death would be caused by the exposure to such an incredible onslaught of water hitting you, non stop, for 40 days and then everything and everyone would have been floating in a brown sludge. But I'd assume that everything was dead within 10 days, 15? at the rate many think it fell - after that it would be over kill, literally.
40 days and nights of rain is one thing - enough rain to cover the earth as Genesis states today - for 40 days and nights - whole nother deal. It's the details and the math that crunches it - so I would assume that the record's been messed with over the millenia, or just represents a massive morality tale, with some likely tags to reality. There is more feasible history and evidence of a large flood occuring in that area of the world and there being a kind of history that's similar that may be true.
For those who say "well, it's in the Bible so it must be true" - they're being silly. Yes it's in the Bible, what does it really say, what does it mean, how should it be understood? I think theology has talked itself into a corner on a lot of things and is just stuck there.
But either way, it doesn't have to be the pin upon which everything else hangs on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Now,
(Ask any harmonica player, that's God playing the harp.)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Likewise -
Wyatt proposes something along the lines of the blood of Jesus falling through a crack in the earth that happened after his crucifixion when the earth "shook" and that soaked into an area below that spot where the ark of the covenant supposedly was. I think - I've read these accounts before.
There's a lot of pieces that have to come together for that to even be remotely possible.
It's less a matter of it being true in my opinion - because what Wyatt does is seek existing evidence, artifacts, historical evidence of past events we read of in the Bible.
That's fine, and a very worthy endeavor. But I can't require that there be evidence today or that there be artifacts for me to find. LIke with the blood of Jesus stuff - it would be interesting but - so what? It's not going to take the records of the gospels and make them all true. Nor if ancient wood is found on a mountain. Boat? Fine. What's that really prove though?
A quick glance at the assorted web sites seilling stuff doesn't offer the kind of validated documentation I hoped to find.
I am somewhat dubious however of claims that can only be really understood by buying a DVD, tape or book. The videos are just snooze fests. ZZZzzzzz.
My man.
Waters that be Muddy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I have to think of genesis 1, 2, and 3 when thinking about what was in the arks.
Mostly gen 1.
And what the arks are.
I lean toward the things in the arks, and the arks, as not symbolic,
though the language to communicate may be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
What the world teaches, that Yeshua's blood on a cross is good enough. Yeshua's blood needed to have fallen on that ark, the purification sacrifice? Not a troll, just trying to learn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Ron Wyatt did not produce evidence of that happening, his claims did not prove that his blood sampling was the blood of Jesus.
He was looking for something he intended to find, one way or another apparently. His "proof" did not prove that was the blood of Jesus Christ. He wants it to be, fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
I see what your saying, but Yeshua's blood had to have fallen on that Ark somehow, not on wood?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I have mixed feelings on it being literal.
The atonement by blood sprinkled on the ark, and that being the actual blood of Jesus Christ physically on the ark lid itself - I'm not sure that has to be the case.
Christianity is based on a fulfillment of the offering done in a way that would be "once and done", not a continuation of previous ritual but a final act of sacrifice and offering, the atonement of the sacrificial lamb - Jesus.
As I understand it there is an element to that offering of it being in real time, being done before God, "sprinkled", put forth in a way that it's clear that it's a real sacrifice and a real offering.
We know that according to the records set forth in the gospels that did occur, in that Jesus died and His blood was shed, literally and in real time.
The "offering" of it was being done in a vastly greater context than the day and people involved - Romans, Jews, followers, enemies, observers, all the participants were performing their actions completely different and contrary to what a Temple priest did when offering the blood at the ark. There was no singleness of purpose to make the death of Jesus Christ an "offering" of any kind.
That's very telling to me - it fits with the burial and time of Jesus in the grave, the 3 days and 3 nights. He died and was buried. But to the people he wasn't killed to make a sacrifice before God, and while He was dead no one anticipated the resurrection.
These events were clearly an engineering and execution of a Godly intent and purpose - nobody knew what was going to happen next, they abandoned any hope of a future with Jesus and were themselves distraught until He revealed Himself to them.
Soooooo - could it have happened that way, where the blood did actually do that? I don't know, other stuff comes to mind but gotta run for now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Christ is not limited by or to christianity.
Just pointing that out, not agreeing or disagreeing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
I know when Yahweh raised Yeshua from among the dead, that Yahweh gave Yeshua that life (John 5:26) in a new body. Yeshua told them that he was going to get that life, they knew they had a some kind future with him, but they had a hard time understanding what he was saying about that life he was going to get.
I always thought that Yeshua, when Yahweh raised him from among the dead, went into heaven itself and put his blood on the ark that up their somehow. It seems Yahweh worked it out to be a sacrifice after all, the people did not know that Yeshua's blood would have fallen on that ark, they just thought they were killing the man.
What a crazy story for this Ron dude to make up, Yeshua's blood had to put on something other then wood or the ground?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.