Archaeology

The Ark of the Covenant and the Mercy Seat that sits atop the Ark have been found.

According to Ron Wyatt, who passed away in 1999,  Noah’s Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus Red Sea Crossing, Mt Sinai in Arabia and the most extraordinary, Christ’s blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat, have all been discovered.  Much of the evidence is available for all the world to see.

These are of course some of the most controversial findings ever.  Mr. Wyatt is certainly not without his detractors to say the least.  It’s best to keep an open mind as you look into this information.  Follow the links in the “Archaeology Resources” section to hear his story and see the evidence for yourself.

Why did we post information about Ron Wyatt?

I wanted to take a moment to explain why I decided to post information for Ron Wyatt’s discoveries on God’s Proof.  Once you’ve had a chance to examine the evidence you will see that these certainly are some of the most extraordinary claims that anyone has ever made; aside from those made by Jesus Christ.

If his claims are unfounded, then this would be the most disgraceful act a “confessing” Christian could ever perpetrate against the body of Christ.  Let me say that again; If his claims are unfounded, then this would be the most disgraceful act a “confessing” Christian could ever perpetrate against the body of Christ.  A Christian is to have nothing to do with dishonesty and deceit; and to attempt to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ through deception is nothing short of blasphemy.

By thoroughly examining the claims that Christ made of himself, you can only come to one of two conclusions; either he was exactly the person he declared himself to be, or he was a complete lunatic.   The same can be said for Ron; either he is telling the truth or he is a charlatan of the worst kind.

For a long time, I only spoke of these findings with a few people that knew me best.  I didn’t want to be associated with something that could potentially be false; especially of this magnitude.  After several months of looking into the information I finally came to the conclusion that Ron was legitimate.  However, just as the apostle Paul didn’t expect his listeners to blindly accept what he was saying (Acts 17:11), I too don’t expect you to accept the claims from Ron Wyatt just because I say so.

In the United States judicial system, a man or woman is innocent until proven guilty.  The same approach should be taken when examining the claims by Ron and the Wyatt Archeological Research group.  If you were to sit on a jury, you would be expected to listen to both sides of the case, examine all the evidence, listen to the testimonies from each side and then go off and deliberate.  I hope that you will do the same in this case, as well with all the other areas on God’s Proof.

As you begin examining the information, please keep some of the following thoughts in mind.

There is a difference between evidence (the facts) and the interpretation of the evidence.  For example, the Grand Canyon exists; that’s a fact.  Now, how it got there is up to interpretation.  The evolutionist says that it came about by millions of years of water erosion.  The creationist says it was a breached damn that was created within a few hours during the world-wide flood.  It’s left up to you to decide which theory (interpretation) makes the most sense.

In reference to Ron’s discovery of Noah’s ark, the fact remains that the boat shaped object is a man-made structure.  Whether that structure is truly Noah’s ark or is just some other type of man-made structure is up for interpretation.

Certain pieces of evidence can have more than one interpretation; however, once it is placed in context with all the other evidence, you need to ask yourself, “Does the interpretation continue to hold?”   For example, in the book The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel was certain that James Dixon was guilty of shooting police sergeant Richard Scanlon during a scuffle.  However, as new evidence came to light, the case reversed itself and took a completely different direction.

Just because you can give a different interpretation for a subset of the facts, that doesn’t mean that, that interpretation holds for all the facts.  For example, I could present to you over one hundred pieces of evidence on a particular discovery.  You could then take ten of those facts and give them an interpretation.  And for just those ten, the interpretation may be valid.  Yet, once you put your interpretation upon the rest of the evidence, you may find that it no longer holds.  If not, then it should be discarded; the interpretation that is, not the facts.

It’s similar to the old story of blindfolding several people and having each person touch a different part of an elephant. One thinks it’s a tree, another thinks it’s a hose, and another thinks it’s a wall.  It’s not until they all get together that the truth finally comes to light.

Be careful not to give the evidence a cursory look.  Many scholars, university professors and experts will assert that Jesus never personally claimed to be God; he was a revolutionary, a good man, a sage, but certainly not God…right? After a complete examination of scripture though, you will see that Christ did claim to be God.  In fact, he was killed for who he claimed to be, not what hedid.

You can easily find just enough evidence to support any belief you may have for virtually anything.   But, is it the truth?    If you choose to discount the claims of Ron Wyatt, you will have no problem finding a critic to support your viewpoint; however, is it the truth?  Don’t just give the evidence a quick once over to say that you’ve examined it and found it to be false.  Also, don’t do the opposite and say that you found it to be true.

Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, called attention to the fact that without the details, you leave the evidence open to a multitude of interpretations.  Many legal professionals have noticed that scripture is written in such a way that it leaves no wiggle room when it comes to the issue of salvation.  It’s very similar to a legal contract.  This doesn’t become evident until you look at all the details.  If the number of details is minimal, these open gaps will allow any number of interpretations to enter.  So don’t become fatigued by examining the details; it is a must.

Throughout Ron’s discoveries, his objective was to gather and document the evidence, have the data submitted for scientific testing, and then present the information to the public.  Ron held to the principle that each individual is capable of making their own decision.  Therefore, please give yourself plenty of time to work through the material on both sides of the argument.

From my perspective, the thing that impressed me the most was Ron’s humble attitude.  In everything that I’ve read, listened to, and watched, Ron at no time took credit for his findings.  He always gave credit to the Lord.  Some people will give a superficial “thanks” to the Almighty and then move on to explain how “they” discovered the evidence; however, this was not the case with Ron.

Not only did he give thanks to the Lord, but he also recorded how he was led to the sights by divine intervention. It could best be said that these findings were revealed to him, as opposed to him discovering them.   To be accepted by the academics however, you would never claim that God revealed it to you.  Doing such a thing would be committing scholastic suicide.  However, Ron was not after personal praise.

Initially, I was drawn to his documentation and scientific testing; however, it was his faithful attitude in the Lord that spoke volumes to me.  Most would become arrogant at such discoveries; however, Ron maintained an attitude of humility throughout each of the findings.  Unfortunately, some of those that surrounded Ron did not respond in like manner.

I wish you the best in your investigation.  If you come to the same conclusions as I have, you too will realize the implications of his findings.

Advertisements