Here is a link to a great book "The Two Republics" by A. T. Jones and how it shows him going into the historical books and archives, and he was much more dedicated in studying and learning history than I had previously thought.
Well its about comparable to me or you going to the Holy Land and asking around and saying show me the tomb of Christ and where the children of Isreal crossed the Red Sea and then reporting it as fact. You need years of training, research and at least independant validation of your evidence before you come out and say, hey look what I found. But Adventist as the pilgrims since the Middle Ages traveling to the holy lands have a habit of wanting to believe everything that they are shown or told that have any connection to biblical times.
You have basically are validating what I said, first was the " outreach tours and he was very good for getting people into meetings. For a long time we have used "Biblical Archaeology" to draw people into our meetings but the problem was that these meetings quickly became purely evengelistic meetings". 'Outreach tours' is not for serious researcher, and ' became purely evengelistic meetings' tells me it the research was more to get attention and bring people in for 'evangalism'.
As for being 'recognised by the Turkish government and a tourist centre' if you find a 'tablet of stones' I am sure they will do the same thing to get some tourism dollars from the attraction and get a boost from the all the Christiams that come with their tourism dollars, and I would say ditto for Isreal as they have the allowed many sites that we know are just a shot in the dark with the claims made for them.
With the "Joseph's Grain pits" and "Mt Siniai" you show that even governments and yourself have limits to what they will accept as 'historical sites or artifacts'. That is were you need to start, see if all of these are really what they are being claimed to be, and if not then check and see how Ron Wyatt presented them and I think you will see he may have meant well in what he was doing, but most wasnt true archaeological facts or finds.
Here is some evidence: Ron Wyatt said that he was the one who discovered the famous Solomon Temple ivory pomegranate in the same cave where he claimed "discovered" the Ark of the Covenant.
Just one little probelm with his lie: there was a story published in a French archaeological magazine that PROVES the pomegranate was known of at least TWO FULL YEARS BEFORE Wyatt claims to have "discovered" the cave.
This is an irrefutable fact.
How could an article have been published about an artifact a full two years before its discovery? There is only one way: Ron Wyatt lied.
I supplied the link to the article on a pro-Wyatt forum and all I got for my time and effort was a constant barrage of attacks from people who have put their faith and trust in a dishonest man and will allow NO critcism of his holiness.
Richard said, "Well its about comparable to me or you going to the Holy Land and asking around and saying show me the tomb of Christ and where the children of Isreal crossed the Red Sea and then reporting it as fact."
Richard, I don't understand on what basis you can suggest such an equivalence?
Your scenario is so completely different. Have you actually looked at what has been claimed to be found and the evidence presented in support of those claims?
You have to prove the claim or finding with hard evidence then allow others to come in and study it and then after the evidence has been looked at and validated, then you can say "This is the ark of Noah or the tomb of Christ". Want a example, hey I have a spring near my house and it looks like its close to were Ponce De Leon was looking for the 'fountain of youth', wow it must be the fountain. Does it make it so, no it doesnt, to say nothing that most scientist would laugh if you brought such a claim to them..
Richard, I repeat the question... Have you actually looked at what has been claimed to be found and the evidence presented in support of those claims?
You seem to be ignoring the fact that evidence has been provided for all the "discoveries" except for one. As I said previously, the Turkish government opened a tourist site at the "Noah's Ark site". Are you suggesting that they did that solely on the basis of Ron Wyatt's claim that he had found Noah's Ark there? What about all the others, from many disciplines, who were also trying to locate the Ark in the same area? Did they all get it wrong as well?
Others *have* looked at the evidence and have not been able to gainsay what Wyatt has said. Israel has signposted the "Sodom site", "sulphur balls" have been taken and analysed in a laboratory and found to be of a greater purity than sulphur found anywhere in the world.
Considering that archaeology, particularly Biblical archaeology, is a fluid discipline (see David Roth's recent realignment of Pharaonic dates to fit more closely with the Bible) and the fact that many (most?) archaeologists regard the Bible as a myth I'm not sure what empirical evidence you are looking for.
You are accusing Wyatt of being either careless or dishonest but on what basis? If you have looked at the sites that present his evidence and are able to refute it, fair enough. Do you have a specific basis for saying he has made the claims without evidence and did so solely for self-agrandisement?
You said that "there is very little true evidence for what he claims except 'Ron Wyatt says'". So what do you say about the objects being photographed underwater at Nuweiba, the sulphur balls, the laminated wood with rivets, etc. in Turkey, the pits near Gizeh, and so on. All of these are hard evidence, others have verified them and no-one (as far as I know) has scientifically refuted them.
You are suggesting that not only was Ron Wyatt being deliberately dishonest but also that no-one else has been allowed to study these objects/sites. That is far from the truth. Wyatt also had a trained, qualified archaeologist working with him, are you also suggesting that he was lying as well?
I have no problem with you taking a contrary position to Wyatt but it appears to be based on your personal opinion rather than any scientific or Biblical refutation of what Wyatt claimed.
I think we reached the limit on the number of replies.... But to answer your question JohnB, you have a valid point. I am not a scientist or archeaeologist just a layman so I am making the comments from that viewpoint, and maybe we need to bring those whose area of study this is and review it and give a critique of his work. Let me see if I can find if there is already a review of his work and give a link....
talking about the archeologist that has a little "museum" in TN...he's been dead for quite some time...We went to his "museum" about a year ago. Supposedly he had located the "Ark of the Covenant" while going through some tunnels. According to him (there were no witnesses) it was right under where Christ was crucified. The blood of Christ dripping through the rocks onto the mercy seat. Interesting supposition...it would certainly make a lot of sense...but since no one was with him and no one else has ever found it...everyone needs to draw their own conclusions. If I were looking for the Ark...that would seem like a perfect place to look.
www.anchorstone.com is the website of a group following up some of the work of Ron Wyatt. I was a skeptic for many years until I went to the site which he said was Noah's Ark. If you are not a believer it looks like a pile of rocks and mud. If you are a believer you have to admit that the length is right, as is the width. Going over the site with a metal detector reveals what are thought to be metal rivets all over the place and not in random. It is in the right area and about thirteen anchorstones have been found in the valley .They are the largest ever found. While the Turkish government has declared that this is the site they have done NOTHING to develop it as a tourist attraction. . As for the sulphur from Gommorah..... I have touched a match to my piece. It burns a lovely blue and is reported to be the purest sulphur ever found. I believe that Ron Wyatt will be vindicated eventually whether the denomination or scientists believe in him or not. Gideon was not a military general, nor was Noah a boat builder but the Lord used them both because they were willing. Why not Ron Wyatt just because he did not have the credential of a scientist? 'nuff sed