Ark of the Covenant Discovered in 1982

[Shek]

This thread is being posted to discuss Ron Wyatt's discovery on January 6th, 1982 when he says that he found the Ark of the Covenant.

(Ron Wyatt - Wikipedia)

If you attempt to visit the Wyatt Museum on the net, you'll be redirected to an attacker warning. I find this to be one of many very suspicious occurrences when searching for Ron's evidence which for the most part has been buried or long forgotten. Keeping in mind that 36 years has passed since the Ark was found.

There are various videos on the net, but I'll be posting the ones that I feel are the most complete.

I'm guessing that the link should bring you to the Vimeo video. If it doesn't, you can do a search for Bill Fry's 1996 Documentary.

The next video will present evidence of the Israeli Military and Department of Antiquities denial. Ron does provide names and ranks, but I haven't investigated them myself simply because I believe his claims and pre-established credibility. Though I find that he may have been intentionally deceived by those with ulterior motives.

I have some doubts about what transpired during the discovery. Specifically....the 4th time that he entered the chamber.

Here's a written testimonial by Bill Fry shortly before Ron's death, which is a snippet of his last interview with Ron.

Ron Wyatt’s Last Interview Reveals What The 4 Angels Told Him In The Chamber Of Ark Of The Covenant

If you haven't gathered the obvious yet, the Ark was hidden for a multitude of controversial reasons; Jesus' blood and the Jews being faced with not only having to admit Jesus' divinity, but also having to level the Dome of the Rock in order to rebuild the Temple. But beyond these reasons, there's something that I've found to be too convenient, possibly pre-planned and points to a sinister deception.

Pope Francis, Sunday and Seventh-day Adventists

Returning to the Bible, Poland Reclaims Sunday as a Day of Rest

The Sunday law appears to me as a set-up, an intentional fulfillment of Revelation in order to keep the masses ignorant of the actual fulfillment when it occurs. I have a number of reasons to believe this to be the case....but those reasons will have to wait for another discussion.

For Christians that may not already be aware....

Exodus 20:8 Hebrew Text Analysis

Exodus 20:9 Hebrew Text Analysis

Exodus 20:10 Hebrew Text Analysis

The Biblical Sabbath is NOT Sunday.

Judaism 101: Shabbat

There is more evidence to support Ron's discovery, but I don't want this opening post to be too long. The primary evidence being shown above, secondary evidence is theoretical and controversial.

 

[Hank77]

If you had found the Ark of the Covenant wouldn't you have made sure that you showed it to recognized archeologists and church leaders? Wouldn't you have taken photographs and drew maps where to find and have given these to recognized archeologists and church leaders?

 

[Sanoy]

I don't believe Ron. I imagine angels have better things to do than ask Ron to personally pick up the 10 commandments to put on a shelf, tie the public knowledge of their existence to Ron's righteousness, and specifically confirm a particular belief in 7th day adventism to Ron and consequently to his audience.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

This thread is being posted to discuss Ron Wyatt's discovery on January 6th, 1982 when he says that he found the Ark of the Covenant.

no true evidence whatsoever...

 

[Shek]

If you had found the Ark of the Covenant wouldn't you have made sure that you showed it to recognized archeologists and church leaders? Wouldn't you have taken photographs and drew maps where to find and have given these to recognized archeologists and church leaders?

Ron has proof, but he was forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement issued by the Israeli Military & the Department of Antiquities. This is thoroughly explained in the evidence provided, but is shown in the Military & Antiquities denial video.

The key details proving that Ron found the actual Ark are in a number of places.

Unam Sanctam Catholicam: Did Jeremiah Hide the Ark on Mt. Nebo?

Why does the Catholic Bible include the Maccabees and the Book of Wisdom? | Busted Halo

Deuterocanonical books - Wikipedia

Better read these links above closely. You have to thoroughly study the evidence to see why the Ark hasn't been disclosed publicly. The primary reason being that true prophesy cannot be fulfilled with prior knowledge. But the large majority of the masses will believe a deception if it disclosed publicly and matches scripture.

But the proverbial "nuke" that Ron did in fact find the Ark...is in recent news; the Sunday law being passed and being pushed by Pope Francis.

(There's another instance where a Pope presented the Sunday law to the United Nations back in I think the 90's, but I can't find the link right now. It was a quick read so I can't be sure of the year of which Pope. I'll have to find the article again and post it.)

What I find to be enormously suspicious is the 4 angels suddenly appearing in street clothes and several days after the Ark's discovery. It is my own opinion that these were not angels, they were soldiers of the Israeli Military. The set-up is their utterance of "when the Sunday law is enacted", or what Ron refers to as the Mark of the Beast law; a law that overrides the Biblical commandments.

(This is a war against global faith's people and I hope that all of you are paying attention?)

Ron's discovery clearly compromised his ability to think clearly and it's obvious that he may have been a little naive and too trusting. So a pre-planned set-up was set in motion to hide the discovery and only give Ron enough room to attempt to disclose what he knew. But without open disclosure, those in control absolutely knew that the vast majority wouldn't believe him. Even if Ron presented the blood evidence and documentation to a handful of people, it wouldn't move anywhere without that proof being broadcast.

Let's face the truth peeps, if it's not on TV or the news....you're less likely to believe it. Even if you saw the actual proof and the blood evidence in your hands, which I believe is absolutely genuine, most of you wouldn't know what to believe without a lab technician or others that are more qualified in making that determination. People are too dependent on government acknowledgement rather than researching and studying the evidence themselves.

Ron is clearly a victim of much more serious deception that's playing out right now. But unless you're active in searching for the truth of what's going on, sadly....you're going to be in the very same situation that Ron faced and willingly accept a set-up. You'll be deceived by those with ulterior motives.

The Secret Space Program (aka Solar Warden) & the War in Heaven

an army in space - Google Search

This is not a new branch of the Military. It has been in existence since the early 50's, but is just now being disclosed publicly. Prior to now it was classified and hidden ....just like the Ark.

And I'm sure that most of you at LEAST know about this? If not, I honestly hope that you start opening your eyes, cuz I have nothing but pity for those that willingly accept the global deception that's ahead. Start doing some homework peeps....

The 3rd Temple in planning stages

3rd temple in planning - Google Search

The Israeli government would have to already have possession of the Ark.

 

[Hank77]

The Israeli government would have to already have possession of the Ark.

They don't have to have the Ark to rebuild the temple, they didn't have it in the second temple.
All of the excuses for no evidence don't hold up. I don't think he ever let go of the Noah's Ark claim, even though it was proven to be a natural mound, and proven so by a YEC scientist.

 

[Radagast]

This thread is being posted to discuss Ron Wyatt's discovery on January 6th, 1982 when he says that he found the Ark of the Covenant.

That's rubbish. He didn't find the Ark. And those YouTube videos prove nothing.

 

[Radagast]

Ron has proof, but he was forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement

In other words, there is no proof, and it's all rubbish.

And Christians have been worshipping on Sunday for just about 2000 years, btw.

 

[Shek]

In other words, there is no proof, and it's all rubbish.

And Christians have been worshipping on Sunday for just about 2000 years, btw.

Sunday worship didn't occur until 325 AD.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

Ecumenical council - Wikipedia

Prior to that time, followers of Jesus were not called "Christians" since the term itself didn't even exist until the Greek copies were written hundreds of years after Jesus' resurrection.

Early Christianity - Wikipedia

Jesus was a Jew and he practiced Judaic law, he worshiped on the Biblical Sabbath....which is not Sunday.

This time period is also the origin of Christmas.

Sol Invictus - Wikipedia

This is where the English word for the first day of week came from; Sun-Day.

 

[Hank77]

Prior to that time, followers of Jesus were not called "Christians" since the term itself didn't even exist until the Greek copies were written hundreds of years after Jesus' resurrection.

Are you saying that hundreds of years later the Bible was corrupted?

Act 11:25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

 

[Shek]

They don't have to have the Ark to rebuild the temple, they didn't have it in the second temple.

The Dome of the Rock is Islam's holiest site, so the ONLY way that Israel could make any plans for building the temple and broadcasting those plans publicly....is if they're in possession of the Ark.

Dome of the Rock - Wikipedia

They would otherwise have ZERO justification for levelling Islam's holiest site.

 

[Shek]

Are you saying that hundreds of years later the Bible was corrupted?

Act 11:25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Little bit of history on the NT, in case you're not already aware?

The origin of the New Testament.

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

Scroll down to Table IV.

Left side dates are speculation as to when the original texts MAY have been authored, but nobody knows for sure since there are no original texts in existence. We haven't even found copies written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The far right side dates are the earliest known papyri, which range from 125 - 400 years AFTER Jesus.

But to give you a clearer example of the origins of the earliest NT texts, we'll use John since he's the earliest book at 125 - 160CE. That means from the point of the original authored text to the earliest Greek copy, there might only be 1,000 copies in circulation. So the earliest copy of John dated (125 - 160CE) would be the 1,001 edition.

It's this copy on what all NT's are founded on. Each book is actually a copy of another copy of unknown origin written by an unidentified copywriter...all in Greek, hundreds of years later.

The point is that nobody knows, to this very day, if the Greek texts are verbatim copies of the originals. We don't even know if the original texts exist at all; that's the scary-truth for all of Christianity. However, assuming that the original texts exist buried somewhere in the sand (or permanently locked away in the Vatican archives) evidence clearly shows that the copies are not verbatim because there are so many contradictions between the testimonies.

194 Contradictions New Testament. These contradictions do not include non-eyewitness testimony nor do they reveal which passages were non-eyewitnesses. Some apostles, even though they witnessed Jesus ministry...were not witnesses to other events that they recorded. It takes common sense and attention to detail in order to catch the inaccuracies in the testimonies...so pay close attention when reading and studying the Greek NT.

The book of Hebrews has no known author...

Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia

And Luke's books are widely disputed, especially Acts.

Authorship of Luke–Acts - Wikipedia

Luke didn't come onto the scene until 70 years after Jesus.

Paul & Mark were both 50 years later.

 

[Radagast]

Sunday worship didn't occur until 325 AD.

Completely false. Apart from the New Testament references, 2nd century Christian writers talk about worshipping on Sunday. For example:

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons." -- Justin Martyr, c. 150 AD.

Prior to that time, followers of Jesus were not called "Christians" since the term itself didn't even exist until the Greek copies were written hundreds of years after Jesus' resurrection.

Yes they were (Acts 11:26). And the New Testament was originally written in Greek, being complete before the year 100 (how long before varies significantly from scholar to scholar). We have manuscript evidence going back to the year 130 or thereabouts.

This is where the English word for the first day of week came from; Sun-Day.

Early Christian writers tell us that the Resurrection (the day after the Sabbath in the Jewish week) was on the "day of the sun" in the Roman week (in English, for historical reasons, we use the Germanic versions of the Roman day-names).

 

[Radagast]

The point is that nobody knows, to this very day, if the Greek texts are verbatim copies of the originals.

We can be pretty confident that what we have is a true copy of the original, because we can infer the original by comparing independent copies from different parts of the world.

[Staff edit].

 

[Shek]

Completely false. Apart from the New Testament references, 2nd century Christian writers talk about worshipping on Sunday.

Evidence?

Christianity in the 2nd century - Wikipedia

Yes they were (Acts 11:26). And the New Testament was originally written in Greek, being complete before the year 100. We have manuscript evidence going back to the year 130 or thereabouts.

Did you even read the evidence that I provided before posting?

Scroll down to Table IV.

Left side dates are speculation as to when the original texts MAY have been authored, but nobody knows for sure since there are no original texts in existence. We haven't even found copies written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The far right side dates are the earliest known papyri, which range from 125 - 400 years AFTER Jesus.

Early Christian writers tell us that the Resurrection (the day after the Sabbath in the Jewish week) was on the "day of the sun" in the Roman week (in English, for historical reasons, we use the Germanic versions of the Roman day-names).

Evidence?

 

[Hank77]

Little bit of history on the NT, in case you're not already aware?

The origin of the New Testament.

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia

Scroll down to Table IV.

Left side dates are speculation as to when the original texts MAY have been authored, but nobody knows for sure since **there are no original texts in existence**. We haven't even found copies written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The far right side dates are the earliest known papyri, which range from 125 - 400 years AFTER Jesus.

But to give you a clearer example of the origins of the earliest NT texts, we'll use John since he's the earliest book at 125 - 160CE. That means from the point of the original authored text (suspected to be in Hebrew or Aramaic, but none have ever been found) to the earliest Greek copy, there might only be 1,000 copies in circulation. So the earliest copy of John dated (125 - 160CE) would be the 1,001 edition.

It's this copy on what all NT's are founded on. Each book is actually a copy of another copy of unknown origin written by an unidentified copywriter...all in Greek, hundreds of years later.

The point is that nobody knows, to this very day, if the Greek texts are verbatim copies of the originals. We don't even know if the original texts exist at all; that's the scary-truth for all of Christianity. However, assuming that the original texts exist buried somewhere in the sand (or permanently locked away in the Vatican archives) evidence clearly shows that the copies are not verbatim because there are so many contradictions between the testimonies.

194 Contradictions New Testament. These contradictions do not include non-eyewitness testimony nor do they reveal which passages were non-eyewitnesses. Some apostles, even though they witnessed Jesus ministry...were not witnesses to other events that they recorded. It takes common sense and attention to detail in order to catch the inaccuracies in the testimonies...so pay close attention when reading and studying the Greek NT.

The book of Hebrews has no known author...

Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia

And Luke's books are widely disputed, especially Acts.

Authorship of Luke–Acts - Wikipedia

They, other than Hebrew Matthew, were written for Greek speaking JEWS and Gentiles. Even the OT was transliterated into Greek for the Hellenistic Jews of that time.
But you really are saying the Bible cannot be trusted. The Acts scripture that I posted is just a lie.
I had no idea the SDA taught such things. No wonder Ben Carson has such screwy ideas like the pyramids were for storing grain.
There's no point to this conversation as you will believe whatever.

 

[Radagast]

Evidence?

Provided.

 

[Radagast]

I had no idea the SDA taught such things.

He's not actually SDA at all. Originally he had himself listed as a non-Christian.

 

[Shek]

But you really are saying the Bible cannot be trusted. The Acts scripture that I posted is just a lie.

At no time did I say or imply that the NT is a lie.

I'm simply disclosing what I've found and searching for evidence.

 

[Shek]

Provided.

"The 2nd century was also the time of several people who were later declared to be major heretics, such as Marcion, Valentinius, and Montanus."

"Although the use of the term Christian is attested in the book of Acts from the middle of the 1st century, the earliest recorded use of the term Christianity(Greek: Χριστιανισμός) is by Ignatius of Antioch about 107 AD,[2][3] who is also associated with modification of the sabbath, promotion of the bishop, and critique of the Judaizers."

The book of Acts is widely disputed.

So the Biblical Sabbath was changed to Sunday LONG after the Apostles, is that right?