Re: "Everything that can be checked out is exactly as he says, and when considered carefully, is exactly what one would expect to find based on the details in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy."

Oh!

There are others who take the position that much of what he stated does not check out.

The above is typically made by those who have studied in the field in which he wrote. That applies to each of your specific examples. For example, you mention the outline of a large ship in the area of Ararat: There is much that has been written on that which is said by many to show that what he has stated does not check out.

Allow me to give another example. Prior to his death, he proclaimed on the Web that he had discovered the living shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and one could go on the Internet and look at a microscopic slide of what he claimed to be that living shed blood. I accessed that view. What he claimed to be be proof of life was clearly Brownian Movement. Brownian Movement has never been proof of life. Only a person ignorant of what one sees under a microscope would make such a statement.

NOTES:

Yes, I am experienced at looking at blood under a microscope.

Yes, I am aware that following Rom's death, the Internet claim of the discovery of the living shed blood of Christ has been modified.

I have again visited the Ron Wyatt website. Any of you who would like to see the current display of the claimed blood of Christ, please click on the following URL:

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant-07b.htm

As time passes following Ron's death, the website has undergone several changes. My comment in the above post was to it as it existed some time back. Who knows what it will be like in the future.

NOTE: The above comment is meant to be neither negative, nor positive. It simply is.

Thank you Gordon, and I'll see if I can answer your question.

>Is this your understanding? This is a critical distinction.

I agree this is a critical distinction, but from my study, it's both. There are two sets of tables, one set in a cave on earth (PK 453.2), and the great original set in the heavenly sanctuary. Both sets are said to be brought forth in the future, the ones given Moses at Mt Sinai (see 1BC 1109.2), and the set in the heavenly sanctuary (see 20MR 68.4).

We know from the Great Controversy, page 639.1, that the 10 Commandments will be displayed in the sky. This happens right down at the end of time, during the 7 last plagues, after the close of probation. This must be an event seen all over the world simultaneously, so sounds most likely the set kept in the heavenly sanctuary displayed to the world in fulfillment of 20MR 68.4.

But I believe that event, in 20MR 68.4, is not involving the set on earth. Rather, the 1BC 1109.2 quote says that at an appointed time, God will bring forth THESE (the copy on earth) tables of stone, as a witness against the counterfeit Sabbath. That would be consistent with what Ron Wyatt said he believed would happen, i.e. that these tables of stone would come out around the time of the Sunday law legislation.

It's interesting to note that the passage in GC 639.1 says that when the people see the tables of stone in the sky, their "memory is aroused". Have they seen something like these before? That fits in with a previous bringing forth of the earthly tables of stone from the cave.

Also of note is that the GC 639.1 passage connects the tables in the sky to this verse in Psalms: "And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself." Psa 50:6

That verse parallels Psa 85:11, which says "righteousness shall look down from heaven". What is interesting is the first half of that verse... "Truth shall spring out of the earth".

That strongly suggests two connected events, with the second one related to a display of tables of stone in the sky. If the first one is talking about 'truth' coming up out of the "Earth", that would fit the quote in 1BC 1109.2.

Also, interestingly in support of Ron Wyatt's entire scenario, the previous verse (vs. 10) is connected to the crucifixion. See CSW 171.2, FW 59.3, SD 243.4, TSS 78.1, TMK 10.3, RH Dec 20 1892 par.10, etc. That would suggest a link between the events at the crucifixion, and the future bringing out of the tables of stone on earth.

When considering the 1BC 1109 quote, something to bear in mind is that the three paragraphs talking on this subject on that page were written in different manuscripts, many years apart. Did you notice that the first paragraph was written in 1901, the 2nd in 1908, and the last one 10 months later in 1909? But that can be missed on the first reading if you don't look at the references.

When paragraphs are compiled like this, we need to take a little care that any conclusions we come to are fair to the context. Don't misunderstand me, compilations of EGW works are a wonderful blessing, but we should be conscious of the full context. 1BC 1109.2 is speaking of the earthly tables of stone, whereas the tables of stone mentioned in 1BC 1109.4 parallel the ones in 20MR 68.4, so they are the set in the temple in heaven. Can you see the distinction?

>Have you come across any giant skeletons in your travels so far?

Not complete ones, but I have held and videoed two giant finger bones that Ron had at his house. One was about 2 1/2 times the size of an adults, so it belonged to an enormous person.

Heres a picture of it...



And I have heard accounts of giant skulls in Turkey, the size of basketballs. It would great to be able to follow up those reports.

>Is Dogubayazet off limits now with the U.S. intervention in Turkey and the imminent (nuclear) attack on Iran?

Not that I have heard. When we were there last, we were told by locals that it was commonly believed in Iran that the USA is planning to ultimately attack them. It's concerning, and obviously we all hope it doesn't happen.

>Is the Ark site (Noah's) still open?

It was still open when we last visited about 12 months ago, and a friend of mine visited Turkey earlier this year, and had no problems. The Iranian border crosses over the ridge above the Ark site, and there is a Turkish army base at the bottom of the hill, with both armies having lookout posts around the hills in view of the Ark site. So it's a heavy militarized area, but last I heard it was still o.k. travelling there to visit.

Hope that helped, regards

Ross

Thank you for your questions Gregory, and I'll see if I can answer them to your satisfaction. Please let me speak plainly, because these are important issues. First, can I share a principle from Inspiration? Consider this quote:

"The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority--not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith." {GC 595.1}

Much of what is called 'science' today blurs the distinction between pure science and human opinion. One good example of this is the field of Evolution, which is considered a firm and settled part of science by a majority of scientists today, but in reality it is mixture of science and speculation. People accept as given areas that are not possible to determine by testing or direct observation, e.g. the age of the earth. Evolution is built upon faith in unproven theories. And because it is has become so entrenched in the academic world today, when new discoveries contradict evolutionary theory (like Robert Gentry's work on the radio halos in granites) it has little impact on the beliefs of most scientists.

The issues over the Noah's Ark site are of a similar nature, and so the principle in the above quote is very applicable. Yes, many 'learned men' are critical of the site, but because it has not yet been excavated, their conclusions are not based on definitive observation. This is obvious when one considers the variety of discordant opinions expressed concerning the Noah's ark site:

- Colin Murry-Wallace: "nothing more than a plunging syncline, the top of which has been weathered."
- John Morris: "represents a rare belt of dark crystalline rock with manganese nodules."
- John Baumgardner: "...clay and rock debris flowing around an isolated block."
- Clifford Burdick: "clay up-push in a lava flow."
- Ian Plimer (before visiting the site): "plunging geo-syncline"
- Ian Plimer (after visiting the site): "an allochthonous block"
- Lawrence G. Collins: "doubly plunging syncline."
- Murat Avic: "a large hard rock slab from the Miocene limestone"

However, the evidence that has been able to be gleaned from the site and the surrounding area is what we'd expect if this is the remains of Noah's Ark. It is the precise length we'd expect, radar scans show an internal structure too regular to be merely random natural geology, samples are consistent with what we'd expect from Noah's Ark, etc, etc.

And very importantly, the site is in line with what we'd expect from Inspiration regarding the landing site of Noah's Ark:

"The Lord remembered Noah, and as the waters decreased, he caused the ark to rest upon the top of a cluster of mountains, which God in his power had preserved and made to stand fast all through that violent storm. These mountains were but a little distance apart, and the ark moved about and rested upon one, then another, of these mountains, and was no more driven upon the boundless ocean. This gave great relief to Noah and all within the ark." {1SP 80.1}

So we have to look for a 'cluster' of mountain peaks, a little distantce apart, and which must be remnants of pre-flood mountains (i.e. NOT a volcano). This description would exclude the post-flood volcano, Mt Ararat, where many look for the Ark today. Rather, this is a very good description of the mountain tops around the Durupinar site.

Quote:

---

>Allow me to give another example. Prior to his death, he proclaimed on the Web that he had discovered the living shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and one could go on the Internet and look at a microscopic slide of what he claimed to be that living shed blood. I accessed that view. What he claimed to be be proof of life was clearly Brownian Movement. Brownian Movement has never been proof of life. Only a person ignorant of what one sees under a microscope would make such a statement.

---

This may surprise you, but I agree with your last sentence. A very important principle is not to attribute a position to a person simply because others who claim to speak for them say so. Ron Wyatt never put forward the "Somatid" theory. It was not on the original website that he helped establish (www.anchorstone.com), and it was added to the wyattmuseum.com website by others only after his death. The fact it has since been modified was not a retraction of something that Ron believed, for he never held to the Somatid theory, but a retraction by those who claimed to be speaking for him.

Another example of this kind of unfortunate misrepresentation is the issue of the Wednesday crucifixion. Certain individuals at WAR claim that Ron believed Christ was in the tomb "three days and three nights". But I know from Ron Wyatt's talks (I have this on video, filmed during a meeting here in New Zealand in 1999) that he believed as we do, i.e. Friday crucifixion. But if you were to accept what WAR says that Ron believed, you wouldn't think so.

Be careful of attributing false things to Ron Wyatt simply because someone else claims he believed a certain way, even if appearances make it look like they are speaking on behalf of him. I'm sure you can appreciate this principle. The sad history of the Christian church, and how so many who profess to be Christian in fact misrepresent Jesus, is another example of this. The perception in many non-Christian cultures as to what Christianity is all about does not reflect genuine Christianity, because of the abuse by many professed Christians. So be careful of false witnesses.

At the end of the day, the real questions do not concern Ron Wyatt's character, they concern the evidences for the Biblical sites themselves. And of these, there is much that can be confirmed easily. And this is always a more productive area to discuss, and is more relevant to us today as Christians seeking to share God's word with a lost world.

Hope that helps, and look forward to your thoughts. Regards, Ross

Re: "Ron Wyatt never put forward the "Somatid" theory. It was not on the original website that he helped establish (www.anchorstone.com), and it was added to the wyattmuseum.com website by others only after his death. The fact it has since been modified was not a retraction of something that Ron believed, for he never held to the Somatid theory, but a retraction by those who claimed to be speaking for him."

And

"Be careful of attributing false things to Ron Wyatt simply because someone else claims he believed a certain way, even if appearances make it look like they are speaking on behalf of him."


I will make a couple of comments. All of them are based upon a several year-old memory of events. As my memory is imperfect, feel free to correct anything that I say that is inaccurate:

1) I first visited the Ron Wyatt website during the time that Ron Was alive, as I recall. So, at that time, I will assume that it represented Ron's thinking, and not that of someone who wrote after his death.

2) I do not recall any mention of the "somatid theory" on his website. Therefore I do not attribute that theory to him, and in my post did not intend to attribute that to him. What I do recall, is his claim to have discovered the shed blood of Christ, and that the discovered blood was still alive, which was to be expected as Christ was God, and diety, cannot die.

3) I also recall a vidio clip on that website which was claimed to be a video of a microscopic slide of that shed blood of Christ. That video showed particle movement, which was put forth to be evidence that the blood was alive at the time it was observed on a slide. I do not recall that any mention was made of the so-called "somatid theory." As one who has seen many slides of both animal and human blood, I recognized the particle movement at Brownian Movement. I will say again that Brownian Movement has never been a sign of life. It is an observable feature in objects that are under microscopic observation. Thse objects do not have to be living. In fact, the particles that are participating in the Brownian Movement are never alive.

4) I have viewed the current posting of the slide on the current website. As I compare it in my mind with what I remember of the posted slide on the website when Ron was alive, it appears to me that the current slide has been enhanced. The slide that I remember fits the more classic rendition of Brownian Movement than does the current slide. If the current one has been enhanced, I do not criticize them for doing so. Such enhancement may be a valid approach to such objects. I simply say that I remember it in a more classic form, and the current one appears to me to be enhanced.

5) Based upon the above, to include the fact that I did not mention the "somatid theory" in connection with Ron Wyatt, I do not believe that I have falsely attributed anything to him. Now, if you are telling us that Ron never claimed to have discovered the living shed blood of Christ, which I did attribute to him, that is another matter.

Re: "This is obvious when one considers the variety of discordant opinions expressed concerning the Noah's ark site:"

Ross, you then post the names of seven people and their opinions. As I understand you, you are telling us that these opinions are dicordant, or to put it another way disagree.

I do not understand that. I read your posting, and to me they are not in disagreement. Rather, they can be stated in one consistent statement. I might organize them into the following statement:


"The formation suggested to be that of Noah's Ark consists of Miocene limestone (Avic), which has manganese nodules (Morris), was formed in another location (Plimer--after), and now sits in a bed of folded rock (Murry-allace, Plimer-before, and Collins). This block of rock is surrounded by clay and rock debris (Baumgardner)."

Now, as to Burdick, I will grant you that his view does seem to be somewhat in disagreement with the others. So, I have not included his in my statement.

Let us look at some of the meanings of the words used by the people that you cited:

Synclyne: This simply means a bed of folded rock. The other words that were used in connection to synclyne simply give additional meaning to the bed of folded rock.

Allochthonous: Simply means that the rock was formed elsewhere, and transported to that location. The word Autochthonous would mean, if it had been used, that the rock had been formed locally, and not in another location.

Ross, you fail to show me that the people you cited are in any kind of substantial disagreement, with the possible exception of Burdick, and there are some explainations for him.

Re: "The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority--not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith." {GC 595.1}"

Ross, your citation from EGW relates to religious faith.

The belief in a global flood, and an Ark which held Noah and his family, is a point of religious faith.

But, I do not believe that the claims of Ron Wyatt should be elevated to religious faith. I also do not believe that the claim that the remains of Noah's Ark rest on a mountain in Turkey should be elevated to a point of religious faith.

Surely you will allow me to beleive, in a global flood, and disbelieve that the ramians of Noah's Ark rest on that mountain. If they do not, that does not destroy one's belief in a global flood.

So, I ask you when you cite a statement from EGW in connection with a discussion abour the remains of Noah's ark resting on a Turkish mountain, not to elevate that to a statement of religious faith.

In the same vein, if I do not beleive, as I do not, that Roan Wyatt discoverd the living shed blood of Christ, that you you do not assume that I deny the death of Christ. Ron Wyatt's claimed discovery should not be elevated to a point of religious faith. NOTE: I am aware that you have not stated such. I am simply further illustrating my point.

Ross, I will conclude with a reference to an earlier post of mine:

You said: "Everything that can be checked out is exactly as he says, and when considered carefully, is exactly what one would expect to find based on the details in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy."

I then responded:

"Oh!

There are others who take the position that much of what he stated does not check out."


That is exactly the actuality. There are Bible blieving, Christians who believe that much of what Ron Wyatt said does not check out. I am one of those. I am not going to get into a point by point discussion of why I beleive as I do.

Further, I am not going to get into some of the more personal areas in which Ron has been attacked. That is not my style.

If you and others want to accept what Ron has said, fine. I am simply posting, not to contradict him, but because you have stated that: "Everything that can be checked out is exactly as he says, and when considered carefully, is exactly what one would expect to find based on the details in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy."

I disagree what your statement. So, I am posting in relation to what you said. Things, in my opinion, are not exactly as he said, in everything. I believe that much of what Ron said is not supported.

Hi Gregory

Thank you for your replies.

Quote:

---

I have again visited the Ron Wyatt website. Any of you who would like to see the current display of the claimed blood of Christ, please click on the following URL:

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant-07b.htm

---

Quote:

---

"I first visited the Ron Wyatt website during the time that Ron Was alive, as I recall... I do not recall any mention of the "somatid theory" on his website."

---

That's the point I was making, there was no mention on the site of the Somatid theory when Ron still had a say in the matter. That was added since Ron passed away.

The link you gave above is only the second page of a two-part article, and it is this article which specifically mentions the somatid theory by name. The first half, which introduces the somatid theory, is found at http://www.wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant-07.htm

It was not a theory that I ever heard Ron Wyatt promote in any way. Although he didn't say so directly, I got the impression he did not go along with it at all. If you read the article it explains that it is Richard Rives who introduced the idea. And I agree with you, the movement displayed in the video clip that Richard Rives had put on the site looks like Brownian motion.

But this was not what Ron presented as evidence for the blood of Christ. The point being, don't dismiss Ron Wyatt for someone else's errors.

More responses to follow.

Regards, Ross

Having read the story written by Rons wife, it appears Ron did account this blood sample with some unusual properties. What difference would this make?