Holy Relics or Revelation 0923309640

Citation preview

Sacred Relics by Russell R. Standish Founder, Remnant Ministries and Colin D. Standish President, Hartland Institute

Published by Hartland Publications Rapidan, Virginia

© Copyright 1999 by Hartland Publications. All rights reserved. ISBN 0-923309-64-0 Published and distributed by Hartland Publications Box 1, Rapidan, VA 22733 Printed and bound in the United States of America

ii

Sacred Relics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

The Rush to Find the Ark of the Covenant .................................... 1 Amazing Archeological Claims ....................................................... 7 Be Not Deceived .............................................................................. 13 Christ’s Warning ............................................................................ 20 Evidence ........................................................................................... 26 Anti-Intellectualism ........................................................................ 29 Site of the Garden of Eden “Discovered” ..................................... 34 A Consistent Pattern ...................................................................... 40 Documentation ................................................................................ 45 The Blood On the Mercy Seat ...................................................... 51 A Fictitious Conversation .............................................................. 56 The Question of the Blood Deepens .............................................. 62 Confused Blood Reports ................................................................ 68 Counting Chromosomes ................................................................. 72 A Little Lad’s Blood ....................................................................... 77 Relics ................................................................................................ 81 An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition ................................... 86 Where Is the Evidence? .................................................................. 90 The Concerns of the Israeli Authorities ....................................... 97 Diligent Efforts to Confirm RonWyatt’s Claims ....................... 101 The Wyatt Ark of the Covenant .................................................. 105 Handling the Tables of Stone ....................................................... 110 Disappointed Searchers ................................................................ 115 Further Disappointment .............................................................. 121 Other Deceptions .......................................................................... 126 Will the Ten Commandments Be Displayed? ............................. 135 A Serious Deviation from Seventh-day Adventist Doctrine ..... 139 The Day of Atonement ................................................................. 145 The Theology of Twenty-four Chromosomes ............................. 153 Christ’s Human Nature—the Central Issue of the Gospel ....... 159 The Chariot Wheels ...................................................................... 163 Further Challenges to the Underwater Bridge .......................... 168 The British Admiralty Charting Procedures ............................. 174 Bones and Wood............................................................................ 178 Scuba Diving ................................................................................. 183 Underwater Archeology ............................................................... 190 Mt. Sinai in Arabia ....................................................................... 194 Where Is Arabia? .......................................................................... 200 iii

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

The Israelite Route to The Red Sea and Sinai ........................... 207 Sodom and Gomorrah .................................................................. 212 Conflicting Claims ........................................................................ 218 The Sulfur Balls—Evidence Against the Gomorrah Site ......... 221 Noah’s Ark .................................................................................... 223 Dramatic Headline ........................................................................ 228 Ron Wyatt Did Not Discover Noah’s Ark .................................. 235 The Mount Ararat Site ................................................................. 240 Another Published Claim at the Durupinar Site ....................... 244 Kindly Words ................................................................................ 248 Maintain a High Standard of Proof ............................................ 251 Visiting the Sites ............................................................................ 258 Miracles ......................................................................................... 262 The Elusive Excavating Permit ................................................... 268 Scriptural Truths Destroyed ........................................................ 274 Unrevealed Artifacts ..................................................................... 276 Alibis .............................................................................................. 278 Scientific Mistakes and Problems ............................................... 281 Those Who Have Stood Nobly ..................................................... 283 True Friends in the Faith ............................................................. 288

iv

1 W

The Rush to Find the Ark of the Covenant

E INVITE the reader to first examine the brief Introduction before

reading this or any other chapter. This is important. The Ark of the Covenant was constructed under divine mandate in the fifteenth century B.C. It was a reflection of the Ark of the Covenant in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The Lord gave Moses precise instructions regarding its construction and these were faithfully fulfilled by the skillful artisan, Bezaleel. The Ark knew many locations following its construction, before it suddenly disappeared from Biblical record. It was transported from site to site in the forty years of the journeyings of the Israelites in the wilderness. Upon reaching Canaan it was situated between Mounts Ebal and Gerizim (Joshua 8:33) before a fourteen year period of residence at Gilgal (Joshua 5:10). From Gilgal it was placed in Shiloh for over 330 years, with two brief interruptions (Joshua 18:1). About 14 years after its first location in Shiloh, it was temporarily brought to Shechem in order that Israel might recommit themselves to the Abrahamic and the Mosaic Covenants (Joshua 24:1,26). During the Judgeship of Eli the Ark was taken into battle by his profligate sons, Hophni and Phinehas, where it was captured by the Philistines and initially placed in the Temple of Dagon (1 Samuel 4:4–5:2). Because of the great catastrophes which came upon the Philistines during its sojourn in enemy hands, the Ark was transported to various parts of Philistia (1 Samuel 5:7–10) before, in desperation, it was returned to Israel at Bethshemesh (1 Samuel 6:7–14). Its tenancy there was short-lived as it was removed to the home of the priest, Eleazar, in Kiriath-jearim (1 Samuel 6:21–7:2). There the Ark remained for twenty years. King David directed that the Ark be removed to the house of Obed-edom (2 Samuel 6:10–12), but because the king did not follow the precise instructions given by God for the transportation of the Ark, Uzzah lost his life (1 Chronicles 13:7–10).

1

2

HOLY RELICS

After a period of three months in the home of Obed-edom, David transferred this holy article to Jerusalem following the capture of that city from the Jebusites (1 Chronicles 15:3). The Ark was a 450-year-old antique when it first rested in the Holy City. During the post-Philistine period, the Ark was not located in the Tabernacle. Initially the tabernacle was set up in Nob (1 Samuel 22:19) and later in Gibeon (1 King 3:4). It was this separation which stimulated King David’s desire to build a temple on Mount Zion. About 950 B.C. King Solomon fulfilled his father’s dream. But not all was well and a quarter of a century later Pharaoh Shishak plundered the Temple treasures (1 Kings 14:25,26). More than a century later King Jehoash of the northern kingdom of Israel also plundered the temple (2 Chronicles 25:23,24). About a quarter of a millennium later King Hezekiah provided the treasury of the Temple as a tribute to Assyria (2 Kings 18:14,15). The same monarch’s foolish display of the temple treasury to the Babylonian envoys incited the envy of that nation and later led to devastating consequences (2 Kings 20:12,13). At some unspecified time the Ark was removed from the Temple, for we know that King Josiah, the great-grandson of Hezekiah, later commanded its return to the Temple (2 Chronicles 35:3). Many speculate that the Ark had been hidden by faithful priests at the time of the Temple desecration during Josiah’s grandfather’s reign. That evil ruler, King Manasseh, established idols even in the Most Holy Place (2 Kings 21:1–5). Whatever the subsequent fate of the Ark, Scripture is silent after its restoration by King Josiah. Numerous Hebrew writings claim that the Ark was hidden to preempt its capture by the Babylonian Empire. The question of the precise location of the concealed Ark has vexed the minds and stirred the adventurous souls of numerous Jews and Christians for centuries. These passions were further stirred by the discovery of the Copper Scroll in 1952 in Cave III north of the Qumran settlement. Written in Aramaic, the copper scroll describes 64 distinct hiding places of various items of Temple treasure. Yet, almost half a century after its discovery, those treasures remain secreted. Theories concerning the hiding place of the Ark run from unlikely locations such as Iraq, through Israel and Jordan to Ethiopia. Each theory has vocal proponents. For each site proponents offer tantalizing evidence, while claimants of other locations proffer “irrefutable” reasons why others’ claims are faulty. Men such as the Finn, Valter Jurelius, British archaeologist Montague Parker, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Rabbi Yehuda Getz and Dr. Randall Price of

The Rush to Find the Ark of the Covenant

3

Texas have expressed convictions that the Ark is most likely hidden in the Temple Mount. Others, including Antonia Futterer and Tom Crotser are convinced that they have found the Ark under Moses’ burial mount, Mount Nebo. These persons base their claim on the fact that the apocryphal book, 2 Maccabees 2:4–8, written around the second century B.C., states that Jeremiah hid the Ark of the Covenant, the altar of incense and the old tabernacle in a secret cave on Mount Nebo. Still other Ark-seekers, including Larry Blaser, Professor Zvi benAvraham, Professor Uri Basson, Dr. Gary Collett, Dr. James Strange and Aubrey Richardson have searched for the Ark in the region of the Qumran Plateau in the vicinity of the caves which contained the Dead Sea Scrolls. The search has extended even to Ethiopia, where the tradition exists that the Ark was carried to Ethiopia via Egypt during the time of Manasseh’s apostasy. Another theory, less prevalent than the above, is that the Ark is actually in Iraq but cannot be displayed because Saddam Hussein refuses to permit excavation of the site. This alibi and many others testify to the single salient fact that the Ark remains concealed. And then there is Ron Wyatt. He claims to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant and other Temple treasures in a cave underneath the Calvary Escarpment. Much of the reason for the plethora of Ark-seekers, whether they be Jews or Christians, is based upon certain doctrinal positions. Many searchers believe as they search the prophecies of the Old Testament, that the world is on the brink of seeing the construction of the Third Temple on Mount Zion. The various expectations of the erection of another Temple upon Mount Zion are all related to apocalyptic scenarios. Many devout Jews believe that the Messiah will come when the Third Temple is completed. This belief is based upon— Jewish tradition [which] says that in the end times Elijah and the Messiah will lead the Jews triumphantly into the Temple through the eastern Temple gateway. (Randall Price, In Search of Temple Treasures, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1994, detail of last photograph between pages 192 and 193)

In a rather futile effort to thwart this Jewish expectation, the Moslems have turned the ground before the eastern gate into a cemetery, believing that neither Elijah nor the Messiah would defile himself by passing through a cemetery. Various scenarios are upheld by the different groups of Messianic Jews. One view promoted by some orthodox Jews completely bypasses the need

4

HOLY RELICS

to discover the Ark and rebuild the Third Temple. Men such as Sephardi Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliahu proclaim that The Third Temple will descend from heaven in fire. (Randall Price, op. cit. p. 291)

Another view suggests that although the Jews will themselves build the Third Temple; the spiritual Temple will descend and fuse with the manmade Third Temple. But most Messianic Jewish Groups promote the requirement of the building of the Third Temple upon Mount Zion and the necessity to first discover the Ark in order to validate the Third Temple. Among such zealots are the members of the Temple Mount and the Land of Israel Faithful, founded and directed by Gershon Salomon. This group has gone to the extent of fashioning a four-and-a-half ton cornerstone for the Third Temple. This cornerstone is prominently and, so far as the Arabs are concerned, provocatively, displayed on the back of a flatbed truck and driven around the walls of the old city of Jerusalem on the Passover, the Day of Atonement and during the Feast of Tabernacles. The insecurities generated in the Moslems by this group were hardly lessened by the Likud Party when Mr. Shamir was the Prime Minister, for he maintained good relations with Salomon. The secular Labour Party, on the other hand, has attempted to rein in the activities of this group. But this has done little to reduce the apprehension of the Palestinians. This concern has led some Moslems to make absurd assertions. Bassam Abu-Lebdah, for instance, stated to Randall Price in an interview on January 20, 1994, To the Gershon Salomon group I say: There was no Temple here [on Mount Zion], so stop fighting to break [sic—destroy] the mosque, for this area is first of all for God. (Ibid., p. 283)

In the same interview Bassam Abu-Lebdah emphasized his claim that This area belonged to the Arabs 5,000 years ago and to Islam 1,400 years ago and no Temple ever was there before in that area. (Ibid., p. 281)

Such statements conflict with history, even if they well serve Islamic claims. Rabbi Shlomo Goren counters Bassam’s claim. Goren believes that— The [Arab] Caliph Omar built the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque. He built the mosque on the southern side in the direction of Mecca for the Arabs. He did not build the Dome of the Rock for the Arabs—to them it was not holy. He built it to serve as a synagogue for the Jews. He was very friendly with the Jews because they had

The Rush to Find the Ark of the Covenant

5

mobilized armies and participated with him in his battles. So he built the Dome of the Rock as a Jewish synagogue [which lasted] for 300 years. He thought that it would become their Third Temple. (Ibid., p. 282)

It is no help to Moslem claims that no mention is made of the Islamic capture of Jerusalem in the Koran, for it was only captured after the demise of Mohammed. The claim of Palestinians that the Al Aqsa Mosque by the side of the Dome of the Rock is the third holiest site in Islam, is hardly upheld by other Moslems living in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey, all of whom claim to possess the third holiest site of Islam, after Mecca and Medina, within their respective territories. Thus there are a number of “Third holiest sites” in Islam. In an interview in Tennessee on the John Ankerberg Television Show, Salomon threw down the gauntlet when he declared that— The Ark of the Covenant cannot be put in a museum, nor in a synagogue, but in only one place—the Temple. We know that the generation of the First Temple hid the Ark of the Covenant for the time of the Third Temple, the last and eternal Temple. (Ibid., p. 276)

His belief is that— The bringing of the Ark of the Covenant and all the holy vessels to the Third Temple will be by the will of God. We shall see it whether or not we want to see it because God [has already] decided it. And if God has decided it, it is [as good as] fulfilled. We shall be the generation of the complete redemption—we shall see again as a reality the Ark of the Covenant here on the hill of God, and nations and peoples will come from all the world to see the glory of God. (Ibid., 317)

Such convictions pose serious threats to Middle East peace and provide a background for the continuing tensions between the Israelis and the Palestinians and, indeed, all of Islam. The great interest of some evangelical Christians such as Dr. Randall Price is their belief that the seventieth week of Daniel 9 begins with the rapture of the true Christians and the signing of a covenant between Israel and antichrist. After this covenant is signed the lost Temple treasures are to be recovered and the Third Temple built, and Israel judged. After 3 ½ years the Temple is desecrated by antichrist enthroning himself on the Ark. This brings 3 ½ years of judgments including the seven last plagues. At the conclusion of this seven year period the Second Coming of Christ is said to occur, Israel is restored, a Millennial Temple, Israel’s fourth, is constructed and all of Jerusalem

6

HOLY RELICS

becomes the throne of God. Christ rules on earth during the Millennium. In the temple there is a resumption of animal sacrifices and Jewish festivals are restored and the Shekinah glory once more rests upon the Ark.

Ron Wyatt’s theological impetus is quite different. His claim to have discovered unique blood upon the Mercy Seat stems from his conviction that the blood placed upon the Mercy Seat, as occurred on the Day of Atonement, led to the final atonement being made for the sins of the world. Millions of dollars have been expended by these Ark-searchers. None yet has produced the Ark or the Temple treasures. All theories are based upon wrong theological positions. Yet the quest continues and no doubt will do so until the cataclysmic conditions just prior to the Second Coming of Christ make such ventures impractical.

2

Amazing Archeological Claims

the decades of the eighties and nineties, amazing archaeological discoveries and interpretations have been attributed to a single archaeologist, Ron Wyatt. Among Ron Wyatt’s discoveries and identifications have been the most sought-after Biblical relics. Documentation abbreviations are: A - Discovered Newsletter No.17,18 1996 Number 4 & 1997 Number 1 (Wyatt). B - Discovered - Back Issues of Newsletters, 1995 (Wyatt). C - Jonathan Gray, The Ark Conspiracy, 1996. D - Discovered - Newsletter Nos. 13 & 14, October 1995 & January 1996, published by Wyatt Archaeological Research. E - Nashville Banner, Jan. 12, 1993 G - Jonathan Gray, Ark of the Covenant, 1997. I - International Discovery Times, 1998 (Summarized from Wyatt publications). N - Ron Wyatt, Discovered, Noah’s Ark, World Bible Society, Nashville, 1989. P - Ron Wyatt videotape, Presentation of Discoveries. W - Mary Nell Wyatt, The Ark of the Covenant, Wyatt Archaeological Research, 1995.

D

URING

Below is presented a list of Ron Wyatt’s discoveries and identifications. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Account of the Flood inscribed on a stone of Noah’s home (C148) Admah—City of the Plain (B46) Altar of a Giant (C149,150) Altar of Incense (G337) (P) Altar of Jehovah-nissi (A17) Anchor Stones of Noah’s Ark (B3) (B19,20) Ark of the Covenant (W1–35) Armor section from an Egyptian Chariot (C87)

7

8

HOLY RELICS

9. Ashes of Sodom and Gomorrah (E1) (P) 10. Baalzephon (B65) (P) 11. Bones of Giant Animals (B1) 12. Book of the Law written by Moses on Animal Skins (W17) 13. Brass rings for curtain hangings in the temple (G337) 14. Brass shekel weight (G337) 15. Brimstone (P) 16. Brook that flowed from Mount Sinai (B93) 17. Burial Jars of Ashkelon (P) 18. Cave of Machpelah where Sarah was buried (W14) (B102–108) 19. Cave where Jeremiah concealed the Ark of the Covenant (W1–35) 20. Christ’s blood (W23) 21. Christ’s tomb (G263–278) (B67–69) 22. Code of the Copper Scroll (Randall Price, In Search of Temple Treasures p. 155) 23. Column in Turkey depicting boat-shaped object (C152) 24. Cross-holes (W10) 25. Earthquake crack in rock (W10) 26. Egyptian Chariot wheels (I4) 27. Elim (A11) 28. Ephod (G337) 29. Fences of Noah’s Farm (B4) 30. Five thousand acre area where the Israelites camped in front of Sinai (C94) (P) 31. Gold from destroyed Golden Calf (C95) 32. Golden Calf Altar (I5) (B93,94) (A20,21) 33. Golden Calf Carvings (I5) 34. Golden Censer (G337) 35. Goliath’s Sword (G337) 36. Gomorrah (B26) (P) 37. Grain Bins in Jerusalem (G246,247) 38. Grinding Mills for grinding manna (C96) 39. Jehovah nisi (P) 40. Kadesh Barnea (D13,14) 41. Laminated deck timber from Noah’s Ark (C38) 42. Mass grave following rebellion of Korah, Dathan & Abiram (Russell Standish, personal discussion with Ron Wyatt, 30th Sept. 1998) 43. Metallic rods holding the seal over Christ’s tomb (G271,274–278) 44. Migdol (B65) 45. Mitre with ivory pomegranate atop (G337)

Amazing Archeological Claims

9

46. Moses’ altar at Mount Sinai (C97) 47. Mount Horeb (I5) 48. Mount Sinai (I5) (B79–94) 49. Mudflow which carried Noah’s Ark from peak (C153,154) (P) 50. Niches for the placement of Christ’s title in three languages (W6,7) 51. Noah’s Altar (B4) 52. Noah’s Ark (I1,2) (B1–30) (N1–91) 53. Noah’s House—Remains (A25) (B4) 54. Noah’s Tomb (D14) 55. Noah’s Tombstone (C148) 56. Noah’s Wife’s Tomb (D14) (N22,23) 57. Noah’s Wife’s Tombstone (C148) 58. Oil Lamps (seven) to light chamber (W17) 59. Passageway through which the Ark was carried to the Cave (W18) 60. Pihahiroth (B65) 61. Plugs for the cross-holes (W9,10) 62. Post-flood civilization site (D15) 63. Pyramid Construction Machine (I7) (N31) 64. Red Sea Crossing (I4) 65. Rephidim (I5) 66. Remains of houses of Sodom and Gomorrah (E1) 67. Ridge where Noah and family stood and saw the rainbow (C155) 68. Rivet from the Ark (B20,21) 69. Saqarra—site of Joseph’s silos (D1) (B57–59) 70. Seven Golden Candlesticks (G337) 71. Shroud of Turin—evidence of forgery (Randall Price, In Search of Temple Treasures p. 155) 72. Skeletons of Egyptian horses (I4) 73. Skeletons of Egyptian soldiers (I4) 74. Sodom (I3) (B46) (P) 75. Solomon’s Marble Shrine (A26,27) 76. Solomon’s Red Sea Crossing Memorial Pillar in Egypt (I4) (B82) 77. Solomon’s Red Sea Crossing Memorial Pillar in Saudi Arabia (B82) 78. Sphinxes of Sodom and Gomorrah (E2) (P) 79. Stone Seal for Christ’s Tomb (G269–271) 80. Stone fence around Mt. Sinai (C94) 81. Streets of Sodom and Gomorrah (E1) (P) 82. Succoth (B64) (N32) 83. Tables of the Ten Commandments (W17) 84. Table of Shewbread (G337) (P)

10

HOLY RELICS

85. Thumb bone of a 12-foot giant (C151) 86. Twelve pillars of stone set up by Moses at Sinai (P) 87. Tower of Babel (D20) 88. Wheel-less chariots of Pharaoh (I4) 89. Wilderness Tabernacle Site (I5) 90. Zeboiim—City of the plain (B46) 91. Ziggurats of Sodom and Gomorrah (E1) (P) 92. Zoar—City of the plain (B46) Undeniably this is an impressive array of discoveries. Indeed, if confirmed, these discoveries would place Ron Wyatt at the forefront of Biblical archaeology by a wide margin. Since archaeology is a painstaking discipline, the discovery of such an enormous range of artifacts from Turkey in the north to Egypt in the south, would represent countless thousands of hours of effort. We are amazed that a man who has been engaged most of each year in his profession as a nurse anesthetist, can claim such a vast array of discoveries. In Australia and New Zealand Ron Wyatt’s claims have received widespread publicity from Jonathan Gray’s accounts of Wyatt’s findings through Gray’s books, periodicals, public lectures and video displays. As a result the Wyatt Archaeological Research claims have received greater acceptance in Australia and New Zealand and generated more excitement than in Wyatt’s homeland, the United States Yet Ron Wyatt’s claims and materials have reached to all six inhabited continents.. Since we first learned of these claims, we have held reservations; reservations which have not been modified by the revelation of further claims. While we have frequently spoken to questioning individuals on this matter, we have never previous to February 1999, written on these subjects, nor addressed them in public forums. Initially, the reason for this reluctance on our part to meet publicly these claims was based upon no motivation other than our failure to see them as very significant. As pastors, we have seen as our duty the spread of the gospel, the call of men and women out of Babylon, reformatory messages to God’s flock and the upholding of Bible truth. But as we have noticed the rising numbers accepting vital areas of the claims in the total absence of credible verification, we began to see that there were dangers to God’s flock in pursuing such a course. These dangers included serious theological errors, together with a lack of emphatic evidence, that reach an alarming magnitude. Even then we have hesitated, fearing that to publicize our concerns would be to cause a division among the most earnest members of God’s

Amazing Archeological Claims

11

flock. But we have discovered that our private expressions of concern have now been telephoned and faxed from one end of the continent to the other and across the vast oceans of the world, so that our findings, based upon thorough investigation, are being expressed, not by ourselves, but by others, who are usually out of sympathy with our reservations. While we possess no doubt that these individuals have attempted to relay our views accurately, there are times when they have not achieved this aim. Thus we believe that, in our debt to God’s people, we should place in writing for their prayerful consideration, the reasons why we have hesitated to rush to support these “findings” and to throw our small influence upon their side. We believe these reasons are cogent and will cause all who have taken an interest in the Wyatt materials to pause to re-evaluate the nature of the evidence provided. At the very least this book is designed to provide a basis for measuring the claims already made and the evidence presented, against the serious reservations which we believe are most important. May our God bless each reader as he or she attempts to put aside personal preferences and desires in this matter, whether it be in support of, or in opposition to, the findings. We commend each reader to weigh the Scriptural and physical evidences provided by Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray. Some of this evidence they have made available but much of it they have not provided, offering a wide range of reasons for withholding the evidence they assure the readers and listeners they possess. It is too near the end of earth’s history for any of us to risk the grave consequences of deception. Today we need to determine whether we will establish our faith upon revelation, as presented in God’s Word, or return to the medieval practice of building faith upon the platform of holy relics. This is no minor matter. We write with a great burden for the souls of God’s flock and its unity in Christian love and truth. We have set as our task, the thorough documentation of the numerous defects and deficiencies in RonWyatt’s claims. God’s people deserve no less. There are enough unsubstantiated claims, erroneous assertions, denigration of those who have shown Ron’s claims to be faulty, and resort to guesswork in the Wyatt and Gray books and presentations, to arouse the deep concerns of Christians of all faiths. We dare not add to these literary and evidential deficiencies by producing yet another work on the subject lacking proper documentation. We are true Protestants! We are of a people who demand full and demonstrable evidence before accepting new theories or doctrines. We are a congregation of believers who are alert to the deceptions of the last days, too easily accepted by the spiritually unwary. We prove all things! In short,

12

HOLY RELICS

we are a unique people, determined by God’s grace to follow only clear lines of truth and certainty. To fall short of such stringent guidelines is to imperil our souls and to destroy our mission which is the most sacred ever committed to mankind. In writing this book we have considered and rejected the desires of some of the Wyatt-Gray supporters who have asked that no such book be written. Such requests may register the insecurity of some who must possess lurking doubts concerning the veracity of the material they have embraced in the absence of solid evidence. Others fear lest some will lose their faith if deficiencies in Ron Wyatt’s widely-accepted claims are demonstrated. But error is dangerous. It destroys faith. It is truth which confirms and consolidates faith. All who have pressed this matter have done so in the absence of the potent documentation contained in this book. Too many of us have accepted assertion in place of evidence. This is never a safe course. Others fear a split among God’s people but that split is very much evident already. If the Wyatt-Gray material is true and verifiable it will unite together all God’s true followers. If their claims are substantially false many will be deceived—a situation that can only militate against the salvation of the deceived. We desire faithfully to alert God’s flock to deception. In this we are sincere. It is the only responsible course that we, as pastors, can take. For years we have been carefully comparing claim with fact. Only now, perhaps a little late, are we ready to publicly share our findings.

3

Be Not Deceived

finds have proven useful in confirming the Scriptural record in the minds of many in the valley of decision. For the thoroughly committed Christian such finds add nothing to certainty, for believers have accepted the words of the Bible without question, for they believe that

A

RCHAEOLOGICAL

All scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

For the rank atheist, no amount of evidence convicts of truth. Nevertheless, when confirmation of Biblical history is provided by secular archaeology, there is an understandable sense of joy in the heart of the believer. Frequently reference is made to the Hittites. Although they are mentioned in 15 books of the Bible (Genesis-9 times, Exodus-7, Numbers-1, Deuteronomy-2, Joshua-6, Judges-2, 1 Samuel-1, 2 Samuel-7, 1 Kings-4, 2 Kings-1, 1 Chronicles-1, 2 Chronicles-2, Ezra-1, Nehemiah-1 and Ezekiel2 occasions) for a total of 47 references, no conclusive archaeological evidence of their existence had been found until the nineteenth century. Consequently, infidels seeking any evidence to support their atheism, had scorned the Biblical accounts as fictitious. It was quite understandable that Christians who had suffered under such taunts were delighted and thankful to God when archaeologists’ discoveries put the infidels to flight on this matter. So much is now known of the Hittites that the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1963 edition) devoted eleven large two-column pages to the subject. In addition, the Encyclopaedia provides a full page of photographs. But there are proffered archaeological discoveries which, despite having been claimed for centuries and having received the applause of countless millions of laypeople over this vast period of time, have never been accepted in archaeological circles, for one reason and one reason alone. It is not that the archaeological discipline has a conspiracy to conceal fact; rather it is that credible evidence of the “discovery” has never been provided. Foremost in making unconfirmed claims has been the Roman Catholic church. We have seen “the chains which shackled Peter in prison” in the

13

14

HOLY RELICS

Church of St Peter in Chains in Rome. We have also seen “Pilate’s Staircase” in Rome. This is claimed to have been the staircase down which Christ departed from Pilate’s judgment hall. It is claimed that the staircase was miraculously conveyed from Jerusalem to Rome. These, and thousands of other Roman Catholic archaeological relics have rightly received no general acceptance, since the evidence confirming their claims has never been produced. Reports of at least 12 shin bones (tibias) of Peter spread around European churches add to the general doubt concerning such relics. Peter would have possessed very interesting legs if they each contained six tibias. They certainly would have drawn attention. Pastor John Coltheart, an Australian evangelist, reported in 1958 that during my brief stay in Rome the visiting of different churches and the seeing of various relics accumulated for me indulgences for 1,150,000 years and 219 days. (J.F. Coltheart, What I Saw in Rome)

The same author reported a story related to him by a friend, who had already been shown over St Peter’s Cathedral and [had been] assured by the priest that the body of Peter lay in the crypt. [He] was visiting another church the same day. Here the monks displayed a skull for his inspection and told him he was looking at the head of the great St Peter. My friend asked how that could be since he had already been assured that Peter lay in the great Basilica and how then could Peter have two heads. He was solemnly told that since this was a small skull, it was the head of Peter when he was just a boy. (Ibid.)

Are such relics, the vast majority of which are based upon undoubtedly false claims, or at best, highly doubtful claims, simply a bit of fun and thus benign, or do they have serious implications? Several factors are worthy of consideration. First, it is a principle of Scripture that error, however innocuous it may appear, is never benign: That which Brother D calls light is apparently harmless; it does not look as though anyone could be injured by it. But brethren, it is Satan’s device, his entering wedge. This has been tried again and again. One accepts some new and original idea which does not seem to conflict with the truth. He talks of it and dwells upon it until it seems to him to be clothed with beauty and importance, for Satan has power to give this false appearance. At last it becomes the all-absorbing theme, the one great point around which everything centers; and the truth is uprooted from the heart. ... Error is never harmless. It never sanctifies, but always brings confusion and dissension. It is always dangerous. (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 292)

Be Not Deceived

15

The apostle Peter warned: Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. (1 Peter 5:8)

The more earnest and sincere we are, the greater is the subtlety of Satan’s deceptions. His ploys for professed Christians of a worldly disposition are transparent, for they already favor his course. But he requires greater stealth in his despicable efforts to take their heavenly reward from those who desire salvation with the whole heart. Here he tempts by bringing exciting “extensions” of truth. Largely these “extensions” of truth are not in conflict with Scripture but there is always present a small, almost imperceptible hook designed to catch the dedicated soul and snatch him from the loving arms of Christ. The apostle Paul clearly warned the faithful believers of Corinth of this Satanic strategy: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3). Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them (Ephesians 5:6,7). That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Ephesians 4:14).

Every church deacon, elder or minister will earnestly seek, in love for God’s people, to alert the saints against the wiles of Satan in these last days. These ordained men, themselves, need daily to seek the wisdom of God that they too, may not be deceived. Their sense of responsibility to the flock of Christ should measure up to that of Paul who encouraged Christ’s Corinthian church members, For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2).

Second, any false concept which becomes part of our belief system is an idol. It is as easy to make an idol of false doctrines and theories as to fashion an idol of wood or stone (Great Controversy, p. 583)

Indeed, false concepts including “holy” relics inevitably become either idols of a material nature or idols of the mind. The brazen serpent constructed by God’s command during Israel’s wilderness journey (Numbers 21:9) later

16

HOLY RELICS

lost its significance and was itself worshipped as a “holy” relic. Because of this, the reformation-minded King Hezekiah was forced to destroy the brazen serpent. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it (2 Kings 18:4).

In our visits to Rome, we have observed devotees praying before the supposed chains of Peter and his reputed burial site. We have viewed penitents climbing the claimed Pilate’s staircase on their knees, reciting the rosary as they do so. What is amazing is that so few of the major sites of Biblical significance are known. For example, the exact site of Christ’s sepulchre is a matter of uncertainty; the precise location of Mt Sinai is unknown, as is the exact location of the crucifixion site. God Himself deliberately buried Moses on Mt Nebo, thus ensuring that the site was unknown to the Israelites lest they make it a place of veneration to which they would make “sacred” pilgrimages. These pagan worship forms play no part in genuine Christian practice. But more serious today, among God’s people, is the fact that subtle deceptions have led to a plethora of winds of doctrine amongst those desiring to be part of the 144,000 (see Colin & Russell Standish’s Winds of Doctrine, Hartland Publications, P.O. Box 1, Rapidan, Virginia, 22733 USA). These are rampaging in our midst. Often winds of doctrine draw large crowds of listeners because they are interesting and they startle the imagination. This causes men and women to conclude that this is evidence of their veracity. We are all guilty of drawing conclusions on the basis of false criteria. The Bible, as a little reflection always reminds us, asserts that the “law and the testimony” (Isaiah 8:20) alone discern between truth and error. A third danger of “benign” winds of doctrine or belief, is that evidence often becomes subservient to a misplaced faith in the one who is presenting the “new-found” doctrine. This leads on from what we have presented in the previous paragraph. Thus Biblical evidence is either ignored or misinterpreted to fit the imaginative theory of the presenter. Evidence of a more secular or scientific nature which is contrary to the presenter’s claims is discounted on the grounds that the presenter is sincere. We first became aware of this course in a more definite manner over a quarter of a century ago when we detected a wind of doctrine entering our church which was to prove the most devastating to date. That wind of doctrine had become known

Be Not Deceived

17

in our church as the New Theology. Its presenter, Dr. Desmond Ford, had been a fellow student with us at Avondale College in 1950. He was completing his last year and we our first. We greatly admired him. We regarded him without peer amongst the students in three important areas—dedication to God’s truth, eloquence of presentation and academic brilliance.We ourselves manifestly ranked low in all three areas when compared with him. Thus we too found it difficult to adjust our thinking even when in 1962 we, for the first time, heard him speak words directly contrary to inspiration. His sincerity of presentation was a stumbling block to our defense of truth. More than a decade was to pass before the mountain of evidence of his Scriptural heterodoxy became so evident that we could no longer continue our faulty thinking in substituting “sincerity” for “the law and the testimony” as the test of truth. Of course, during this decade and more, we never judged ourselves as using “sincerity” in place of “the law and the testimony”; no one who uses this faulty criterion ever does. But in reflection, we realize what we were doing. Only when the accumulation of much evidence that Dr. Ford was tracing a doctrinal path which, if followed, would ensure that sound Biblically-established Seventh-day Adventism would be destroyed, did we muster the courage and will to stand against his misguided presentations. The book, Conflicting Concepts of Righteousness by Faith in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Australasian Division, co-authored by Dr. John Clifford and Russell, published in 1976, was the result of our turning away from the criterion of “sincerity” and returning to the only valid measure of truth, “the law and the testimony.” This was the first publication which challenged Dr. Ford’s errors. It engendered a greater storm of protest than any other book we have authored; indeed, than all other of our books combined. The most serious attack on Conflicting Concepts, as it sensibly came to be designated, was that “anyone can discern how sincere Dr. Ford is.” We could not dispute that assertion, other than to point to “the law and the testimony” as the sole criterion of truth. But many swept aside this correct basis of evaluation, being overawed by Dr. Ford’s demeanor, his eloquence and the sincerity of his style of presentation. We have noticed that “sincerity” of those presenting new doctrines or evidences has lost none of its power as a basis for acceptance of the new winds of doctrine raging like tornadoes throughout the Seventh-day Adventist movement. There is no doubt that a charming personality can powerfully influence the listener. But God’s people are different! We are Seventh-day Adventists! We are the people of the Book! We, above all

18

HOLY RELICS

believers, rely upon “the law and the testimony” alone in Scriptural matters and demonstrable evidence in more secular claims. We take seriously the Scriptural demand, Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

In these last days prior to the coming of our Lord and our call to stand before the judgment bar of God, it is time for each of us to return to this ultimate standard of truth, remembering that Satan, himself, can appear as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). Indeed, he appeared this way to Christ in the wilderness. The vision passed away, and then, with strong craving Christ’s human nature called for food. Now was Satan’s opportunity to make his assault. He resolved to appear as one of the angels of light that had appeared to Christ in His vision (Letter 159, 1903 published in Seventhday Adventist Bible Commentary vol. 5, p. 1080).

It is not only the reader who needs daily to remember his or her obligation to hold fast only that which bears the credentials of Scripture but also, in an even more emphatic manner, the authors, lest any faulty material be spread abroad. We need your prayers to this end. It is a grave responsibility that we owe God’s people. Thus we pray as we write. The fifth danger of “benign” error arises from that recorded above. Satan is ever seeking to break down the wall of truth about us. It is only thus that he will deceive, if possible, “the very elect.” And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).

The servant of the Lord cautions us in a manner which should cause every one who accepts assertions which are not validated, to cease such a dangerous course. If no evidence is produced, then assertions, however interesting or tantalizing, should not be accepted. While first-hand testimony has a validity even in courts of law; such testimony must be distinguished from that which has not been or cannot be confirmed. This is certainly true if there is strong evidence contrary to the assertion. We must all be aware that not all that is claimed to be first-hand testimony is indeed based upon genuine happenings. Let us cite Sister White’s warning: If men are so easily misled now, how will they stand when Satan will personate Christ and work miracles? Who will be unmoved by his misrepresentations then—professing to be Christ when it is only Satan assuming the person of Christ, and apparently working the works of Christ? (Selected Messages Book 2 p. 394)

Be Not Deceived

19

Surely it is now that our motto must be “Prove all things.” This is not evidence of a lack of faith. Quite the contrary; it is evidence that our faith is stayed upon Christ and His Word alone, the only sure foundation. We must not accept unproven theories on the grounds that evidence will be produced at a future date. Such a course is fraught with danger and prepares such for the acceptance of even stronger deceptions prepared by Satan. Now is the time to seek God to rid us of every tendency to believe concepts based upon improper premises and grounds, lest we be deceived. Let us continue in the old paths in which dwelleth righteousness, knowing that deceptions are increasing. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned (2 Timothy 3:13,14).

4 I

Christ’s Warning

wonder that Christ, when requested by His disciples to reveal the signs of His coming, chose the most potent sign first— deception. T IS LITTLE

Take heed that no man deceive you (Matthew 24:4)

was Christ’s first response. Christ followed this counsel by a more specific warning: For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many (Matthew 24:5).

When we were lads, we frequently heard of an Afro-American, who had assumed the name, Father Divine. He claimed to be Christ. He attracted a sizeable following. For some time his death was concealed by his closest followers in order to perpetuate his blasphemous fiction. But we must expect that the elect will not be challenged by such a crude and manifestly false claim. Thus, irrespective of whether some being approaches us with the claim of being Christ or even with a demeanor which suggests such an idea to us, we must be on the alert for deception. We may have a genuine first-hand testimony that we have spoken personally to “Christ,” but that is, in itself, no certain evidence that we have done so. Satan is the masterdeceiver. Always let us remember that Christ emphasized caution when amazing claims are asserted. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many (Matthew 24:11)

The warning has been presented to those in ordained posts, Be on guard; and as faithful sentinels keep the flock of God from accepting indiscriminately all that professes to be communicated to them from the Lord. If we work to create an excitement of feeling we shall have all that we want, and more than we can possibly know how to manage. Calmly and clearly “Preach the word.”We must not regard it as our work to create an excitement (Selected Messages Bk. 2 p.16).

20

Christ’s Warning

21

The greatest warning, one presented by Christ Himself, should be studied with great care at this time: Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:23–27)

Let us notice these words. They are worthy of a second reading, for these are words which are pertinent to the elect of God. The initial warning has relevance for today. We cannot with safety ignore the words “Lo, here is Christ.” Manifestly Christ had no plan to appear personally to any human between His ascension and His second advent, otherwise He would have qualified this warning. It is true that He appeared in vision to Paul, John and Sister White, but never in person. Verse 24 indicates that this warning is specifically designated for the very elect—those standing nobly for God’s truth. Christ further commands us, Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. (Matthew 24:26)

Once more Christ placed no statement of exception upon the two commands issued in this verse— 1. If they shall say unto you, Behold he is in the desert; go not forth. 2. If they shall say unto you ... Behold he is in the secret chambers: believe it not (emphasis added). Some desire to confine the second prohibition to seances, and unquestionably it does encompass such spiritualistic gatherings. (See Desire of Ages p.631). But we must not forget that the appearance of Satan impersonating Christ is the acme of spiritualism. When clear, unequivocal statements such as Christ’s words quoted above are stated, the careful student of Biblical archaeology will certainly be alarmed if any archaeologist claims to have come face to face with Christ. Certainly there will be no rushed acceptance of this or other claims, unless fully documented and thoroughly established by a cloud of witnesses. Yet two reports of an archaeologist who has a world-wide reputation of having discovered the most amazing Biblical archaeological finds have

22

HOLY RELICS

stated that this archaeologist has claimed to have met and spoken to Christ. Another supporter of Wyatt Archaeological Research set forth a discussion with the archaeologist, Ron Wyatt, in Victoria, Australia during his publicspeaking appointments in Melbourne and Ballarat in the Australian Spring (September) of 1998. Ron [Wyatt] was asked about the account given in Jonathan [Gray’s] book The Ark of the Covenant where, on pages 361–363 there is a record of Ron meeting someone who was “at least” an angelaccording to Ron. As Ron gave us a more detailed account we were watching Ron closely as he paused, took a deep breath, and with deep emotion said, “And there stood Jesus Christ.” Ron explained that He was dressed exactly as Ellen White saw Him in vision, with the blue border at the hem of His garment. Ron said he had the kindest eyes he had ever seen, and Ron could tell that He knew everything about him. Jonathan’s account on page 363 says, “whether Christ or angel.” My impression, and I think that of all who were present, was that what Ron had said was the truth. Let the reader of this narrative judge for him or herself. (John Paige, Sabbath House Newsletter No.11, Oct.11, 1998)

Rushing to such conclusions has inherent dangers. We must not ignore the fact that our senses can be thoroughly deceptive. Clearly we would expect that Satan would don the garb of the Biblical description of Christ. We have long been warned that when Satan counterfeits the second coming he will resemble the description of the Son of God given by John in Revelation: And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. (Rev. 1:13–15) (Great Controversy p.624)

Further, when we remember Christ’s prohibition—believe it not, we should show proper respect for God’s command. Today His strong warning, knowing the artifices of the devil, is: And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. (Matthew 24:4)

There are some passages in the Spirit of Prophecy which, if not read in the context of the full testimony of inspiration, have led some to conclude that Christ came down to earth and revealed Himself to the Apostle John. We cite five of these passages:

Christ’s Warning

23

John was strengthened to live in the presence of his glorified Lord (Acts of the Apostles, p.582). Let every God-fearing teacher consider how most clearly to comprehend and to present the gospel that our Saviour came in person to make known to His servant John (Education p.191). The instruction to be communicated to John was so important that Christ came from heaven to give it to His servant (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p.953). Christ visited him [John] in his exile (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 7, p.288). But though separated from his brethren, he [John] was visited by Christ (Review & Herald, May 16, 1899).

First let us turn to Scripture. We note the following facts— 1. The revelations were brought by an angel: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: (Revelation 1:1)

2. John was in the Spirit on the Sabbath day. The Holy Spirit is Christ’s earthly representative: I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet (Revelation 1:10).

3. John saw Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary, not on earth: I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. (Revelation 1:10–16)

4. Christ was in the heavenly Sanctuary when He placed his hand upon John:

24

HOLY RELICS

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: (Revelation 1:17)

5. The account of Revelation chapter 1 is a representation of Christ on earth. In actuality He was in the heavenly sanctuary; Christ is spoken of as walking in the midst of the golden candlesticks. Thus is symbolized His relation to the churches. He is in constant communication with His people: He knows their true state. He observes their order, their piety, their devotion. Although He is high priest and mediator in the sanctuary above, yet He is represented as walking up and down in the midst of His churches on earth (Acts of the Apostles, p.586, emphasis added).

6. Jesus came in person to John in vision: This message Christ came in person to the Isle of Patmos to present to John. He told him to write down what he saw and heard during the vision. (Medical Ministry, p.37, emphasis added).

Christ forfeited His omnipresence when He accepted humanity in great love for us. The Holy Spirit is Christ’s representative, but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally. Therefore it was for their interest that He should go to the Father, and send the Spirit to be His successor on earth (Desire of Ages 669).

Christ is our High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary. But He does not neglect His children. The Holy Spirit has been specifically sent to us as Christ’s representative. He possesses omnipresence. Notice how the Holy Spirit fulfils Christ’s will on earth: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you (John 16:13,14).

That Sister White affirms that Christ will not return to earth until His second coming, confirms most decidedly that Ron Wyatt did not see Christ in person. Christ does not possess omnipresence. He will not leave the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary until His mediatorial work is completed. Sister White received a vision Sabbath, January 5, 1849 at Rocky

Christ’s Warning

25

Hill, Connecticut where she saw the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary. She wrote, Then I saw that Jesus would not leave the most holy place until every case was decided either for salvation or destruction (Early Writings, p.36).

Thus Ron Wyatt could not have seen him about 140 years after this vision. Rightly understood, the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy statements concerning John’s visions provide no grounds for the belief that Christ leaves His ministry of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary to appear to men on earth. Christ’s prohibition “believe it not” thus stands. We will see Him at His Second Coming as lightning which shineth from the east even unto the west (Matthew 24:27). Only then will He be seen in person.

5

Evidence

S

CIENTIFIC

AMERICAN (August 1998) reported a gathering where

several hundred scientists, theologians and others gathered here at the University of California, Berkeley to discuss the points of conflict and convergence between science and religion.

During this conference, men including George Ellis, a cosmologist at South Africa’s University of Cape Town, John Barrow, an astronomer at the University of Sussex, England, John Polkinghorne, a well-respected English particle physicist, who later became an Anglican priest, and other highlyregarded physicists argued that the universe was designed (Ibid).

In this assertion, these scientists have an unending source of scientific data in support. Reputable scientific observations, unlike many scientific theories, all shout design. But we find that convicted evolutionists carelessly ignore the irrefutable conclusions staring them in the face. They hold to their atheistic scientific tenets with a zeal which would do credit to a bigoted religionist. Another attendee at the conference, Stanford University (USA) cosmologist, Andrei Linde, admitted that certainly more and more top-level scientists are considering the Anthropic Principle [the concept that a living being designed the universe] seriously in their work. ... But he disputes that the coincidences point to God (Ibid.).

Professor Linde prefers to believe in a theory which he helped to develop. This theory of origins is known as inflation (see Russell & Colin Standish, The Big Bang Exploded, Hartland Publications, P.O. Box 1, Rapidan Virginia 22733 USA). This theory asserts that—

26

Evidence

27

Our universe is just one bubble in a much larger eternal foam of universes. The constants and laws of physics may differ in each bubble [universe] (Ibid.).

Notice what Dr. Linde has done here. Clearly he possesses a premise that God does not exist and that the observable universe is the result of “natural” forces, thus evolving without direction or design. This presupposition enables him, then, to turn away from the convincing evidence of design and the inescapable conclusion that a Being of infinite wisdom formulated that design. He turns his thoughts from what is so evident, the fact that many of the fundamental constants of nature—from the energy levels in the carbon atom to the rate at which the universe is expanding to the four perceptible dimensions of space-time—are just right for life (Ibid.).

Dr. Linde chooses to dismiss the correct evaluation, that this and countless other evidences verify that our universe was designed for life and its sustenance. He prefers to propose the unprovable concept that Our universe may be tuned to carbon-based life, not because it was set up that way, ... but because even such a delicate arrangement was bound to happen in one of the myriad bubbles [postulated universes] (Ibid.).

Again, notice what has taken place here. An eminent scientist has ignored established scientific observation and has substituted in its place a theory which has no proven basis and which even in principle, cannot be tested. This defies one of the most basic tenets of scientific investigation. A valid hypothesis or theory must be testable. Our earth-bound observations are confined to this universe and cannot extend to “the myriad bubbles” [universes] which Professor Linde postulates. Thus the plain evaluation of evidence is ignored and replaced by a theory which cannot be tested. As in religion, so in science; when a held-belief is not based upon evidence it is clung to with unshakable faith. This is especially so when other humans are provided no avenue to disprove the theory. In some Seventh-day Adventist circles, unsubstantiated views are being asserted on the grounds that it is the duty of the doubters to disprove them. This is a most dangerous position to take. Unless we adopt the principle that we will accept no claim of a spiritual nature without plain documentation from inspiration, we are bound to find ourselves accepting error. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support (Great Controversy, p. 595, emphasis added).

28

HOLY RELICS

The word, plain, in this statement is most important. If an assertion is of a non-Scriptural, more secular nature, even if related to a religious theme, we will find that the acceptance of this matter on the premise that proof will be forthcoming at a later time, is a course fraught with danger. No matter how a “finding” appeals to our frame of mind, let us not open our hearts to embrace it without indisputable evidence. If we were to assert that the sanctuary in heaven was one thousand miles high, your duty is not that you accept this assertion unless you can prove it wrong. While on earth you will never be able to disprove such an assertion. Thus you should reject such an assertion until it is thoroughly confirmed. You would be equally foolish to believe it on the grounds that when you reach heaven this assertion will be found to be true. Even more beholden upon you is that you not urge the veracity of our “claim” upon others on the grounds that you have found us to be sincere men. Yet today many Seventh-day Adventist and Christians of other faiths follow precisely such a course.

6

Anti-Intellectualism

WO CONTRASTING, but equally dangerous, sources of error in evaluating evidence are a naive belief in the views of experts, men of academic qualifications and/or high reputation on the one hand and extreme anti-intellectualism on the other. That men of renowned academic qualifications are frequently wrong is evident from the fact that so often they are at odds, one with the other. Let us not forget that,

T

Hardly an astronomical announcement makes the front pages without being said to overturn all existing theories (Scientific American, August 1998).

The cover story for Scientific American, January 1999 was, Special Report—Revolution in Cosmology—New Observations have smashed the old view of our universe—What now?

What is true in this branch of science is also true in various degrees in other forms of science. It is also true in non-scientific disciplines such as economic theory. The year 2000 Y2K computer bug saw some computer experts claiming that the bug would lead the world back to the conditions of the Middle Ages, while others forecast that it would produce virtually no problem whatsoever. In the field of theology, the great majority of acknowledged experts are wrong. This majority supports Sunday sacredness, the immortality of the soul and the abolition of the commandments after the cross. Also, many support the secret rapture and the principle of once saved, always saved, despite the fact that these doctrines fly in the face of Scripture. Many theologians held in high esteem in their field of expertise ignore plain statements of inspiration. This, tragically, is true even in Seventh-day Adventist circles. Most of our theologians have a distaste for the call of God to Christian character perfection, despite the fact that inspiration in the plainest words upholds such a character as that possessed by those who will be redeemed. It is a matter of eternal life and eternal death.

29

30

HOLY RELICS

And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God. (Revelation 14:5) The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid. (Zephaniah 3:13). The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been— just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents—perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. If eternal life were granted on any condition short of this, then the happiness of the whole universe would be imperiled. The way would be open for sin, with all its train of woe and misery, to be immortalized. (Steps to Christ 62).

We must depend on inspiration alone in spiritual matters. In secular areas, we must demand demonstrable fact. The latter is no easy concept to define. We do not profess that we can provide an infallible guide to that which is “demonstrable fact” for even our senses can deceive us, as all stage-magicians have discovered. We would offer some guides. We take the discipline of Biblical archaeology as an example. Where claims of new finds are made, it should be possible to verify these claims beyond the simple assurance of the Biblical archaeologist’s personal statement of discovery. We provide the following reasonable guidelines: 1. The discovery should not contravene in any particular the Biblical record, for we hold the Scriptures to be accurate. 2. The site of the discovery should be specifically set forth so that the layman can visit it if he so desires. 3. Each artifact discovered should be available for examination by laymen and professionals alike. 4. When a discovery of significance is made, we should expect that other careful and reputable archaeologists will confirm the veracity of the artifact. 5. We should view with great caution any proposition which declares that fellow-archaeologists have denied the veracity of a claimed find because there is a conspiracy to debunk finds consistent with Scripture. There will be a few bigots who will deny facts related to Biblical history at all costs. But it must be emphasized that such are few. By far the greatest response of those of such a mind is to admit the incontrovertible evidence of the discovered artifact, while providing a secular explanation. For example, The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1963 edition, subject Sodom and Gomorrah) reported the sites of these two cities and their three sister cities

Anti-Intellectualism

31

of the plains are in the region of the present Jebel Usdum, “the salt hill at the southwest corner of the Dead Sea.” The Encyclopaedia goes on to state that “The element of history in the [Biblical] narrative of ‘the cities of the plain’ is as difficult to assess as the sites are to determine. A scientific explanation of the catastrophe is not excluded.” Thus this secular authority does not deny the existence of the cities of the plain but it casts doubt upon the historical accuracy of the Biblical account, suggesting that the destruction of the cities could be explained by a natural phenomenon. Similarly, when paleontologists, not surprisingly, discovered that the evidence of a slow progression of evolution could not be sustained by their examination of the fossils in the so-called geological column or strata, they did not deny the undeniable. Nor, however, did they draw the only valid conclusion—that In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Rather they persisted stubbornly in their disbelief in the Genesis record and introduced a new, albeit implausible, theory which they termed “interrupted disequilibrium.” This concept amounted to little more than a stated belief that there were periods of extremely rapid evolution punctuating long periods where the evolutionary process was extremely slow. Recently it has been conceded that Thoughtful contemplation of the human body elicits awe ... The eye, for instance, has long been an object of wonder, with the clear, living tissue of the cornea curving just the right amount, the iris adjusting to brightness and the lens to distance, so that the optimal quantity of light focuses exactly on the surface of the retina (Scientific American, Nov. 1998).

These observations are boldly put forward. There is no denial of facts which demand the conclusion that the body, even in our deteriorated condition, still testifies to super-human design. But it is at this point that a true believer parts with scientists devoted to the obliteration of the Biblical account of origins. The authors of the above article, shortly after writing the above quotation, report the highly-reputed geneticist, Theodosius Dobzhansky as stating: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (Ibid).

In support of Dr. Dobzhansky’s pronouncement they point to the fact that not all is perfect in the human body:

32

HOLY RELICS

For each exquisite heart valve, we have a wisdom tooth. Strands of DNA direct the development of the 10 trillion cells that make up the human adult but then permit his or her steady deterioration and eventual death (Ibid).

The contrast of the superb sets of heart valves with wisdom teeth which do possess an important grinding function is a curious choice, perhaps reflecting the difficulty the authors of the article found in providing evidence to refute divine creation. However, it is valid for them to contrast the intricate and amazing accomplishments of DNA molecules which make up our genes in directing the numerous cells of the body, with the fact that with age the DNA system becomes faulty, leading ultimately to death. Yet this fact does not negate the Scriptural revelation, so evident in nature, that this world was formed by divine design. Rather it testifies to the dictum of Deity that the principle of sin if chosen by man, would lead to death: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:17)

The Bible perfectly explains that which genetic research has discovered in recent years—that an original perfect design, the nature of which is still clearly discernible, has become faulted because of the entry of sin into the world. Thus our experience is that, in general, unbelieving men will not deny plain matters of demonstrable fact, but rather they will fatuously deny their plain implications when they point toward divine design or credibility. 6. Similarly, we should view with due caution judgments that other archaeologists’ denials of an archaeological claim are based upon competitive jealousy. While such competition does occur in all academic disciplines, it is rare that a genuine find is made that is not acknowledged by professionals in the same field. Such mass and corporate dishonesty motivated by jealousy in relation to demonstrated fact is extremely rare indeed. Here we are stressing observable fact—not theory. The intellectual battle is normally at the theological level. 7. When a discovery of great interest and significance is made, we should expect mass media coverage. The media magnates are “hungry” for news which promotes their circulation in the case of newspapers and magazines and increases their listening and viewing audiences in the case of the electronic media.

Anti-Intellectualism

33

While it is unwise to accept uncritically the views of experts in any field of learning, it is equal folly to adopt an anti-intellectual stance amounting to a disbelief and distrust of all those who carefully pursue research, be it historical, scientific or scriptural. Here we must all strike a right balance. Our lives as we enter the third millennium of the Christian era (as calculated by our faulted calendars) are dominated by confirmed scientific discoveries by men of high intellect. Every time we step into an aircraft we place confidence in the science of aeronautical engineering. But beyond this we accept the valid findings of the physics of electricity, radar, satellite navigation, wireless communications, fuel technology, metallurgy, meteorology and even video presentations to inform us of news and arrival information. All this science was undertaken by men of renown and genius. Tragically, in this century the great majority of these scientists believe not in the One whose laws of physics they discovered and Who applied them for mankind’s benefit. Sister White, while properly condemning injurious forms of medical practice, quite rightly rejected the anti-intellectual approach to health, when she encouraged the founding of a school of medicine based upon scientific principles. Every one of the eight natural remedies she advocated has been demonstrated often, by non-Christian medical researchers, to have direct benefits for the biochemistry of our bodies, the immune system, the cardiovascular system and, indeed, all our biological systems. Science has demonstrated quite conclusively the very mechanisms whereby our trust in God, provides “the peace of God which passeth all understanding” (Philippians 4:7). This greatly benefits physical health. It also has confirmed that sunshine in moderation is beneficial and that a vegan diet is the best energy supply for the body, and thus with the other five natural remedies. So let God’s children take a balanced approach to evidence, first placing inspiration above all other measures of evidence, and where the Bible is silent, neither mindlessly accepting every word of “the experts,” nor rejecting the findings of intellectuals out of hand. Once more we promote the principle which is necessary for our day, one which is rational, considered, beneficial and most of all, bears divine credentials. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

7

Site of the Garden of Eden “Discovered”

HEADLINE in the Melbourne (Australia) Sunday Herald Sun, January 10, 1999 declared “Explorer Tells How I Found Eden.” Almost two full pages were devoted to David Rohl’s claim that “The Garden of Eden existed ... and he knows exactly where it was.” David Rohl has excellent credentials and is well known in archaeological circles. He is acknowledged as a “scholarly archaeologist.” He caused a stir three years ago with a book and television documentary, Pharaohs and Kings. In this he provided archaeological evidence for many of the events and personalities of the Old Testament from Joseph to Moses. (Ibid) Surely Rohl’s discovery of the site of the Garden of Eden is a wonderful confirmation of the Bible. Rohl made his discovery by first accepting the historicity of Genesis. This is indeed an encouragement to examine his finds further. Rohl builds confidence in his work because he has claimed that

A

There also was an Adam whose descendants lived as they are named in Genesis and correspond to those in other legends. Rohl says there certainly was a flood, and has dated it. Noah and his descendants were real people, built a Tower of Babel and he has identified its remains. More than that Rohl can account for the origin of explosions of ancient Egyptian culture and the pharaohs who held the children of Israel captive in Egypt. The Bible it seems, is back in business as true history, [and] has a solid basis in fact. Judging by the latest archaeological evidence it is a pretty accurate description of the beginnings of civilization as we know it (Ibid.).

Such claims are bound to arouse the interest of dedicated Christians, hungry for secular confirmation of the Word of God. Are we then bound to believe this claim unless we can prove it wrong? Rohl sites Eden in a region which is just west of the Iranian city of Tabriz. In answer to the question posed above, the reply is an emphatic “No!” We must test Rohl’s claim.

34

Site of the Garden of Eden “Discovered”

35

We need not take a flight to Tabriz in order to make a preliminary assessment of his claimed discovery. If one is inclined to visit Iran to judge the matter for himself, surely it would be prudent before the expenditure of means to weigh the evidence provided in Rohl’s book, Legend: The Genesis of Civilization. If it measures up as a serious archaeological discovery then one who is eager for first-hand observation could with profit spend his means to travel to Iran. If it does not, then that cost can be conserved. Let us return to our suggested seven criteria listed in the chapter entitled “Evidence.” We shall apply these criteria to Dr. Rohl’s claims. At this point in time it is a little too early to investigate criteria four, five and six. Other reputable archaeologists have not, as yet, had sufficient time to check Rohl’s work. Archaeology is a discipline conducted slowly, with due care. Likewise we require more time in order to determine whether some archaeologists will deny irrefutable facts of discovery on inappropriate grounds such as their distaste for Scripture or their jealousy of a successful archaeologist. So let us examine the four remaining criteria. Criterion seven encourages some confidence. Rohl’s claims have been publicized world-wide by the press and television. The Melbourne Sunday Herald Sun article is but one of numerous reports. Further, the claims are printed in a book published by a well-known British publisher, Random House. These facts do confirm that the mass media currently is interested in publishing details of archaeological finds related to Scriptural themes. Criterion three has been met. Rohl has clearly stated the location of Eden. It is in a location open for all to visit: The garden which God planted ‘eastward in Eden’—to the east but still within its boundaries—is the valley east of Lake Urmia in northwest Iran. It is about 320 km long bounded by snowcapped mountains and watered by the river Adji-Chay (meaning Bitter Waters)... ‘you can see what it used to be like—the approaches to Tabriz along the valley, are crowded with orchards and vineyards bursting with every kind of fruit, just like Genesis says.’ Experts in archaeology and climate have determined that this area—part of which lies in what is today called the Republic of Armenia—was once a good deal wetter and warmer than it is today (Ibid.).

Dr. Rohl also supplies further details of Eden, within the territory of which is the Garden. Eden’s borders in the west encompass south western Turkey and north-eastern Iraq and then extend through north-central Iran and east beyond the city of Tabriz but stopping short of the Caspian Sea.

36

HOLY RELICS

The Archaeologist invites full inspection of the area of his claim. He offers no grounds upon which either laymen or fellow-archaeologists would find it difficult to examine his claims and test their validity. Thus the discovery claims meet criterion two also. That criteria two, three and seven are met does not, of course, confirm the alleged findings. Investigators would need, beyond this, to ascertain the bona fide of the claim. Let us now turn to criterion one—Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy accuracy. It is here that Rohl’s claims stall. He asserts that: ‘The vegetation of Eden was considerably more lush [than it is at present], with hillsides cloaked in dense deciduous forests and the valley floors abundant in exotic plants’ (Ibid.).

It is clear here that Rohl deviates from the testimony of inspiration. Before sin there was no death either of animals or plant life. Deciduous trees by their very nature shed their leaves in autumn. This shedding of leaves involves the death of those leaves. That this did not occur in Eden is verified by the inspired record which reveals that after their expulsion from heaven Adam and Eve experienced for the first time the results of sin upon vegetation. As they witnessed in drooping flower and falling leaf the first signs of decay, Adam and his companion mourned more deeply than men mourn now over their dead (Patriarchs and Prophets, p.62).

Clearly any remains of past deciduous trees found in Eden do not accord with the Scriptural record. Furthermore there are no remains of Eden left upon this earth for the discovery of any archaeologist. The Garden of Eden remained upon the earth long after man had become an outcast from its pleasant paths. The fallen race were long permitted to gaze upon the home of innocence, their entrance barred only by the watching angels. At the cherubim-guarded gate of Paradise the divine glory was revealed. Hither came Adam and his sons to worship God. Here they renewed their vows of obedience to that law the transgression of which had banished them from Eden. When the tide of iniquity overspread the world, and the wickedness of men determined their destruction by a flood of waters, the hand that had planted Eden withdrew it from the earth. (Ibid.)

It would seem, in any case, that Dr. Rohl while affirming a belief in the Noachian flood, has not evaluated the massive earthquake and volcanic action which so devastated the face of the globe that there is little doubt that no surface area of Eden remains for examination.

Site of the Garden of Eden “Discovered”

37

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened (Genesis 7:11). As the violence of the storm increased, trees, buildings, rocks, and earth were hurled in every direction (Patriarchs & Prophets, p. 99) Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence (Ibid., p.99).

Manifestly this was no ordinary flood. Dr. Rohl appears to be unaware that: The entire surface of the earth was changed at the Flood. A third dreadful curse rested upon it in consequence of sin. As the water began to subside, the hills and mountains were surrounded by a vast, turbid sea. Everywhere were strewn the dead bodies of men and beasts. The Lord would not permit these to remain to decompose and pollute the air, therefore He made of the earth a vast burial ground. A violent wind which was caused to blow for the purpose of drying up the waters, moved them with great force, in some instances even carrying away the tops of the mountains and heaping up trees, rocks, and earth above the bodies of the dead. By the same means the silver and gold, the choice wood and precious stones, which had enriched and adorned the world before the Flood, and which the inhabitants had idolized, were concealed from the sight and search of men, the violent action of the waters piling earth and rocks upon these treasures, and in some cases even forming mountains above them. (Ibid., pp. 107,108)

Rohl promoted another serious breach of Biblical accuracy: There is a final biblical clue to Eden’s location. It comes from a later passage in Genesis where the narrator deals with the murder of Cain by his brother, Abel [this error is surely inadvertent, as the remainder of the passage confirms]. When God discovers Cain’s crime he banishes him from the Garden (Sunday Herald-Sun Jan. 10, 1999).

Here Rohl asserts that the murder of Abel occurred in Eden, but Scripture affirms that Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden immediately after they entered into sin. This was no mere slip for Rohl repeats this error: And the outflow of the pass leading from the south and east into Nod [the land to which Cain fled] and therefore beyond to Eden, stands the town of Kheruabad—the settlement of Kheru. This name may provide a link to the ferocious winged guardians appointed at Eden’s gateway after Cain’s expulsion. The Bible calls them Kerubim—the cherubs (Ibid, emphasis added).

38

HOLY RELICS

But contrary to that statement Scripture declares that Adam and Eve were expelled prior to Abel’s murder and certainly before the births of Cain and Abel. And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22–24)

Dr. Rohl further displays a penchant for alteration of the Scriptural record when he speaks of Cain, Enoch, Tubal, Methuselah and Noah as being the patriarchs who led their people down to the Mesopotamian plain and founded the first cities of Eridu, Uruk and Ur before they were swept away by the Great Flood (Ibid).

These were not the first cities. The first city was called Enoch. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. (Genesis 4:17).

Indeed Eridu and Uruk are not mentioned in the Bible and Ur is only mentioned as the birthplace of Abraham (see Genesis 11:31) who was not born for more than 300 years after the Flood. It was obviously a city which was settled after the Flood. While Dr. Rohl supports the existence of the Tower of Babel and claims to have confirmed the site of its ruins, he discounts the plain words of Scripture: And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. (Genesis 11:5–8)

Contradicting this passage, Dr. Rohl postulates a quite different explanation: The Genesis story that it [the Tower of Babel] was abandoned because every man began to speak different languages, Rohl thinks is a metaphor for what really happened. Until then there had been unified

Site of the Garden of Eden “Discovered”

39

worship of one god. From then on each city set up shrines to different deities. (Sunday Herald-Sun Jan.10, 1999)

Dr. Rohl’s discordance with the Bible certainly would make most careful Bible students exert caution before acceptance of his claims. Such error rather than confirming Scripture casts doubt upon it. That Dr. Rohl upholds so much of that which is true, simply makes these serious lapses all the more dangerous, for some are bound to see these lapses of Biblical accuracy as rather minor in the light of the truth he affirms. But they are not. Satan is ever vigilant, seeking to open a corridor of doubt which he can later expand. Let us ever remember that Satan will use every opportunity to seduce men from their allegiance to God. (Manuscript Releases Vol.8, p.399)

Dr. Rohl’s claims have excited many people, but in view of his lack of Scriptural orthodoxy in matters of fact it would be quite unwise to accept and promote his “discoveries.” He has obtained world-wide acclaim by the media, and assistance and support from some other archaeologists. He has been perfectly open in describing the site of his “discoveries” and inviting others to step forward and investigate. This is to his credit. But his Biblical errancy generates concern and demands hesitation in accepting Dr. Rohl’s publicized archaeological data and deductions. There are three important conclusions we can draw from Dr. Rohl’s research: 1. The greatest clue to establishing that a “discovery” reveals either faulty data or provides improper conclusions drawn from valid data, is that it diverges from Scriptural integrity. 2. It still is possible for worldwide media attention to be drawn to archaeological claims upholding the veracity of Scripture. Russell and Glenice, his wife, flew from London to Luxembourg on July 9, 1999. The Luxair hostess handed Glenice that day’s copy of the London Daily Mail. It contained a photograph of Ron Wyatt accompanying a letter written by Roydon C. Bolton of Manchester, promoting Wyatt’s claim to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant. While the letter offered no evidence for the claim other than Ron’s own testimony, it did demonstrate, as we have suggested, that Biblical claims, however unsubstantiated, are still recorded as newsworthy. 3. It is usual practice for archaeologists to share openly the evidence upon which they have drawn their conclusions. If we bear these matters in mind as we investigate Ronald Wyatt’s data and deductions it will be most helpful in our evaluation.

8

A Consistent Pattern

of Ron Wyatt have been popularized in Australia, New Zealand, South Pacific, Africa, Europe and Britain by Jonathan Gray. It was not until September, 1998 that Ron Wyatt visited Australia to speak to Seventh-day Adventists and others. He had spoken to a few nonSeventh-day Adventists about two years earlier as a guest of a non-Seventh-day Adventist sponsor but this poorly-advertised series had made scarcely any impact upon Seventh-day Adventists. Long before Ron Wyatt’s visits to Australia, a large body of Seventhday Adventists had accepted his claims on the basis of Jonathan Gray’s presentations. Jonathan Gray’s impact upon the spread of Ron Wyatt’s claims must not be underestimated. He laid a solid groundwork for Ron Wyatt’s 1998 visit and when Ron Wyatt visited New Zealand, Ron and Jonathan joined forces in Thames to make presentations to the public. To Jonathan must be credited the major reason for the great acceptance of the Wyatt “discoveries” in the South Pacific, Europe and Africa. In the United States, Ron Wyatt’s homeland, his claims are relatively little accepted. There Jonathan Gray had had only a minor influence. It is thus relevant to the matters under consideration to examine Jonathan Gray’s interests and literary methods. Jonathan writes in the style of a novelist even when dealing with matters which purport to be documentary. Thus in describing the proposition of Ed Savage, whom he describes as “a bulldog of an archaeologist,” Gray states:

T

HE CLAIMS

That evening I quizzed him over vegetable curry and iced mango juice. “Putting it simply,” he began, “the commonly held view is that we came up from savage, Stone Age beginnings. It was a slow but steady development to civilization.” He wiped dahl from his fingers. (Jonathan Gray, Dead Men’s Secrets, 1998 edition p.14)

Savage, whose surname is well-suited to a “bulldog of an archaeologist” and to someone refuting the “savage” beginnings of mankind, then sets forth his proposition.

40

A Consistent Pattern

41

We cite another of many examples available of Gray’s novelist style: ‘Say, would you repeat that?’ sniffled the clerk. ‘It’s this darned hay fever.’ The transmitter crackled: ‘Enemy eagle approaching from the west.’ The attendant reached for his Strategic Alert button and paused. ... “A single aircraft? It’s just a reconnaissance,” he shrugged. It was 7.55 am. Four miles from town, a young hairdresser was serving scrambled eggs to her three-year-old. Mindful of an appointment, she glanced at the time—8.20 am. That moment was to leave her shocked for life. Suddenly, a brilliant white flash lit up the room: seconds later a searing blast knocked her flat. As it subsided, she struggled, stunned, to the window. (Ibid p.51, ellipsis and emphasis in original).

This is not the style of a documentary writer. Such would ignore matters such as the wiping of dahl off the fingers and the items of the menu being consumed during a serious dialogue. The clerk’s hay fever would hardly rate a mention nor the scrambled eggs eaten by the three-year-old. Such matters are the preserve of the novelist. Now it is true that such matters, irrelevant to the serious views under discussion, do add a homely interest. That is the reason that novelists add such details. But they also possess two distinct disadvantages. Neither of these disadvantages matters in the case of the writing of a work of fiction. But they most decidedly do matter in the authoring of a serious work purporting to be one of documentation. First, the novelist style encourages the inclusion of details for which documentation is not provided. We will explore this a little further, later. Second, it encourages the author to embellish his report. Now Jonathan Gray may actually recall the fact that Ed Savage was wiping dahl off his fingers at the time he was making his pronouncement, but in truth such trivial matters are usually not recalled. In his book, Ark of the Covenant, 1997 edition, Gray recounts a face to face discussion he had with a Dr. P.D. In response to Gray’s statement that the shoes of the Israelites did not wear out and that the Bible calls it one of ‘those great miracles,’ Gray reports P.D. as replying, “W-well...” stammered the doctor, “scientifically it’s impossible” (Ibid p. 481)

Later Gray reports of Dr. P.D.:

42

HOLY RELICS

“The man sat there, seething” (Ibid p.485),

The identification of Dr. P.D. required no detective skills. A year before Ark of the Covenant was published, Dr. David Pennington (notice the initials were reversed), our sister Delma’s husband, had sent us correspondence between himself and Jonathan Gray. As soon as we read Ark of the Covenant we recognized that Gray was quoting from this correspondence. The important point to address is that at no time did Dr. Pennington meet Jonathan Gray, nor did he speak with him by telephone. Thus Jonathan Gray did not hear Dr. Pennington “stammer,” nor did he observe him “seething.” Gray has carried his novel-style of writing too far. No doubt his story is more titillating as presented in his book than a mere documentation of the letters which passed between them, but does it do justice to Dr. Pennington? We say, “No.” David Pennington is a careful, considered individual. He is articulate and not prone to stammering. Further, he is a devout Seventh-day Adventist and church elder who believes without reservation that God protected the footwear of the Israelites. We can state quite emphatically that he would not hesitate in the least in affirming this belief. Thus he has been seriously misrepresented. We have never seen him seethe in the almost forty years of our acquaintance. Seething is a very strong word. To seethe means to be “very agitated especially with anger” (Oxford Reference Dictionary, 1996 edition). Associates of David Pennington would find such a description of him to be uncharacteristic. Certainly his letter displayed no such emotion. Again we state—no such conversation ever took place. When embellishments such as this are placed within a book meant to be read as a serious work of fact, they do nothing to inspire confidence in the accuracy of the remainder of the material, particularly as the data in Jonathan Gray’s book suffer from other systematic defects. Another pattern noticeable in Jonathan Gray’s writings is the claim that he commenced with grave doubts concerning certain matters, even attempting to disprove certain claims. But as he searched for refutations, the evidence in favor of the claims simply overwhelmed him and forced an unwilling acceptance from him.As we read the author’s introductory remarks in his book, Ark of the Covenant, we document his initial skepticism: My mind drifted back ... to the moment I first heard that an unknown American had claimed to have located that long sought treasure, the Ark of the Covenant. “Rubbish!” I cried. “You say this guy Wyatt asserts he’s found the most prized artifact on earth? Who is this crazy nut?”

A Consistent Pattern

43

“I know nothing about him,” said my friend, calmly, “But you could easily get his address. Why don’t you just check it out?” “Look,” I snorted, “If that treasure had been found it would be BIG NEWS. We’d know about it!” “Well, you know about it now,” said Kristine. “I’ve heard such things before. There’ve been so many different claims. Why should I get involved in this one?” And how come a bunch of amateurs could accomplish something professional archaeologists had failed to do for so long? The whole idea was ridiculous. (Ibid pp.7,8, ellipsis in the original)

Gray went on to state concerning this claimed discovery: I was naturally sceptical of such a claim and decided to do a thorough investigation. I expected to quickly dispose of the claims of RonWyatt. However, after intense investigation and repeated visits to the discovery sites, I was overwhelmed by the evidence uncovered. (Ibid., p. 438)

Yet Jonathan had not seen any of the many objects claimed to be in the cave nor had he been shown the blood nor the laboratory report upon its chromosome numbers. Not one! (See chapter entitled “Maintain a High Standard of Proof” where 18 unsubstantiated objects are listed) Similarly, in his book Dead Men’s Secrets, Jonathan Gray speaks in a similar vein as he opposes the concept that mankind did not emerge from savage animals nor develop by an evolutionary process to become civilized man. His opposition was, he claims, strong. But once more he was overwhelmed by evidence and forced to accept that mankind arrived on this planet not only fully civilized, but superior in every way to us today. This latter view is, of course, the stand of every Bible-believing Christian. In this conclusion Jonathan is correct. But let us read from Jonathan’s account of his initial resistance to this view: I knew Ed Savage to be a bulldog of an archaeologist. Even so, his announcement startled me to no end. That evening I quizzed him over vegetable curry and iced mango juice. “Putting it simply,” he began, “the commonly held view is that we came up from savage, Stone Age beginnings. It was a slow but steady development to civilization.” He wiped dahl from his fingers. “Well naturally I expected on-site investigation of the very first cultures to verify this ‘fact.’ But what

44

HOLY RELICS

really emerged was something quite different. The coincidence in each case is simply this: all cultures began suddenly—and fully developed! A long preliminary period is not supported by archaeology.” “But...” I faltered, groping for words. “Before cities on earth,” he continued, “there was nothing; nothing, I tell you, but a clean slate.” “Are you telling me the evidence points to no transition whatsoever between the ancient civilizations and any primitive forebears?” “Precisely! They did not rise to their peak. They were at their peak from the beginning.” “Hogwash!” I snapped. “There has to be trial and error, refinement, evolution.” —(Dead Men’s Secrets pp.14,15) There it was. Our beginnings were in the Middle East highlands. I suggested this to Ed Savage when next we met. The first thing he did was throw at me a tricky question: “So tell me, then, why did agriculture begin in the difficult arc of mountains and highlands? Doesn’t it make you wonder? Why was it not begun on the fertile, easily cultivated plains and valleys?” It was a natural enough question. During my search I had found other scholars expressing surprise at this most odd discovery. “Have you considered a worldwide Deluge?” he suggested. “You don’t mean Noah’s Flood?” I snorted. —(Ibid., p.19)

Such reportings are effective, even if they do border on the melodramatic. Most readers appreciate the experience of someone who has fiercely opposed a truth and later, forced by the weight of irrefutable evidence, confesses his mistake. But in this case some questions do arise. Jonathan Gray was a Seventhday Adventist pastor. Later he left the ministry and left the church.With his background as a Seventh-day Adventist pastor, it is difficult to believe that Jonathan Gray was as shocked as these passages of his book imply. In stating this, we are certainly not indicating deliberate falsehood. Absolutely not! We simply put forward our observation that the use of hyperbole would be consistent with the style of writing Jonathan has chosen to utilize. But we do warn that this style tends to devalue the documentary nature of his work, permitting him to extend his narrative beyond the bounds of absolute fact. This must be borne in mind when reading his books. Using such a literary style, Jonathan Gray faces the danger that fact and fantasy will be fused together as they are in an historical novel.

9

Documentation

ONATHAN GRAY poorly documents amazing assertions. Illustrating the engineering feats of early civilizations, Jonathan cites sixty-one incredible tunnels, but documents only sixteen of these. Those undocumented include the following marvels:

J

Tibetans speak of the green fluorescence in the tunnels as an underground source of energy, which replaces that of the sun, causing plants to breed and prolonging human life. They claim the tunnels go under the Pacific to the Andes in South America and were “built by giants” when the world was young. —(Dead Men’s Secrets, p.203) Tibetan lamas showed the American traveler R.C. Anderson a very old map of underground passages connecting North and South America, Europe and Africa. —(Ibid., p.207) A tunnel with a concealed entranceway below one of the Giza [Egypt] pyramids runs “clear to Tibet,” according to an old account. Another tunnel at the base of the pyramids is claimed to go southward for 600 miles. —(Ibid., p.195)

Surely we are entitled to learn the source of the claim of an amazing tunnel running from Tibet to the Andes in South America, a distance of close to 10,000 miles (16,000 kilometers). Such a feat of engineering would require a word much stronger than “incredible” to describe it. The constructors would need to know the sea depths along the path of the tunnel together with the geology of the sub-surface rocks. They would require a means to provide oxygen for travelers throughout the vast length of the tunnel and also to assist the travelers with coping with the pressure several miles below the surface. Even if the extraordinary cost of such a project were available today, it would be a construction vastly beyond today’s technology. The tunnel from Egypt to Tibet, while not as lengthy, would entail thousands of miles and would also be beyond modern technology by a very wide margin.

45

46

HOLY RELICS

Yet in this section of his book (Dead Men’s Secrets, pp. 194–211), Jonathan Gray heads the section—“Vast artificial tunnels extending for thousands of miles” (p.196). Following the headline, he states— You heard it right—a network of intercontinental subways beneath land and sea! This is the most astonishing and most suppressed archaeological secret (Ibid., p.194)

Here we see another pattern in Jonathan Gray’s writing—the repeated conspiracy of archaeologists to conceal the most amazing discoveries of all times. Notice that these tunnels are the “most suppressed archaeological secret.” Surely if this be so then they must be presented with the most detailed documentation possible, otherwise one can be excused for concluding that the reason that archaeologists do not support the claimed discoveries is that no credible evidence exists. One might also question what possible reasons archaeologists could have for suppressing such an amazing feat. Jonathan produces not even a single credible reason. On the cover of his book Ark of the Covenant is set forth another archaeological conspiracy—“The Legend They Have to Hide!” “They” are not identified. Jonathan Gray has devoted an entire book to conspiracy theories—The Ark Conspiracy. On page 374 of his book, Dead Men’s Secrets, he advertises the book as follows— Cover-ups, betrayals and miracles. The cloak-and-dagger story behind the discovery of Noah’s Ark, attempts to suppress the news. Why some people reject the discovery, and the solid evidence that this is the real thing. A true-life thriller: archaeology at its most exciting.

Are there conspiracies abroad? Of course there are! But we must never permit the assertion of conspiratorial theories to stand as substitutes for confirmed observable and demonstrable evidence. There is only a demonstrated conspiracy of silence when irrefutable facts are presented which can be verified and which men of average intelligence can confirm. Jonathan Gray has demonstrated quite plainly that he is prepared to write an entire volume on a subject which he has not confirmed. He claims that there is a conspiracy to withhold information concerning the “discovery’ of the Ark of the Covenant. He claims he himself possessed grave doubts about its discovery but after investigation he confirmed Ron Wyatt’s claims. Yet Jonathan Gray had, at the date of writing his book, not spent even one trillionth of a second viewing the Ark of the Covenant. In fact he accepted the Wyatt claims without evidence. He has not seen an

Documentation

47

authentic laboratory analysis of the “blood” said to be on the Mercy Seat. He has not seen the items of furniture from the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary which Ron Wyatt claims to have discovered. He has not met the angels who, it is asserted, guard these sacred objects and he has not seen the tables of the law which, it is claimed, have been withdrawn from the ark. Since Jonathan Gray has not, himself, viewed any such objects, it is rather unfair for him to claim that others are hiding the evidence. It is not “The Legend They Have to Hide!” It is a “discovery” which, if it does exist, Ron Wyatt is concealing. Serious students will not accept the cry, “Conspiracy!” as a substitute for credible evidence. In the matter of the Ark of the Covenant, despite Jonathan Gray’s book of 556 pages addressing the “discovery” of the Ark of the Covenant, not a single thread of evidence was advanced. How incredible! (See chapter entitled, “Maintain a High Standard of Proof.”) It will not suffice to advance “evidence” in support which proves to be utterly irrelevant to the matter. On page 486 of his book, Ark of the Covenant, appears a headline, “The Boy Whose Blood Has No Father.” The report under this heading is quoted in full. It appears on pages 486, 487 of Jonathan’s book: He could hardly believe his eyes! The author, Philip Cohen, quoting an article by David Bonthron and his colleagues at Edinburgh University in Nature Genetics (Volume 11, page 164) explained that a certain three-year-old boy had been found whose white blood cells contained two “X” chromosomes, the signal for a female. To cut a long story short, they went on to explain that the probable cause was a self-activating unfertilized ovum which had subsequently (after a short time) become fertilized in the normal way. The sperm would then have entered only a PART of the divided ovum, thereby creating this most unusual effect. Bonthron believed that the boy’s remarkable genetics depended on a number of highly unusual circumstances combining together, and occurring within a very short time window. “I don’t expect we’ll ever see another one,” he said. This was an incredibly rare condition. Such male chromosomal depletion for a boy was something which, until this case, would be considered scientifically impossible.

One does not need to be a geneticist nor a hematologist to discern the flaw in this “evidence.” Chromosomal abnormalities such as these, while rare, are not unknown, although this case has some unique features. These bear

48

HOLY RELICS

no relevance whatsoever to the claim that Christ’s blood had but twentyfour chromosomes. The lad discussed possessed a complete complement of 46 chromosomes. The use of such material is seriously flawed. It is most unwise to use genuine scientific findings to “prove” that which is irrelevant to the finding. (See chapter entitled, “A Little Lad’s Blood” for a fuller discussion of this matter.) In summary, we would state the following concerning the general pattern of Jonathan Gray’s writings: 1. He writes in the style of the novelist. 2. He embellishes facts in order to add interest to his work. 3. His claims frequently lack documentation. 4. On occasions when he does use documentation, the quoted material is quite irrelevant to the claim. 5. He adds interest to his books by describing deep doubts in colorful language and then claiming he has resolved those doubts. 6. He has a tendency to accuse those who do not acknowledge poorly documented claims as being part of a conspiracy based either on religious opposition or professional jealousy. 7. Finally, Jonathan uses a technique to urge the reader to progress to the following chapter. Usually there is some exciting puzzle yet to be revealed if only the reader will continue to read. We cite three examples: With that, we now return to the physical discovery in Jerusalem.And the man who found the Ark, Ron Wyatt. Here comes a man—not qualified, some would allege. And right under the noses of the professionals, he achieves a world scoop. That’s mud in your eye! Why Ron Wyatt? Why not somebody with multiple doctorates and a host of other letters after his name? This is where the game gets vicious.— (Ark of the Covenant p.435) If you think that’s the end of the matter for now, then I have news for you. Wonderful news! Something else happened down there in the Ark cavern. And it’s so amazing, you had better be sitting down! And, as with other events in the saga, the timing was... PERFECT! We shall devote most of the next chapter to it... —(Ibid p.478—ellipses in original)

Documentation

49

One should not be surprised if, on occasions, field archaeology becomes physically dangerous. But when simply reporting to an audience puts one’s life at risk, now that’s something else! Read on... —(Ibid., p. 445, ellipses in original)

The pattern of Jonathan Gray’s writing leads to a style which is interesting. But there is a need for due caution in accepting that which is not documented or is documented by other than credible authorities. In the absence of such documentation, the onus is upon the author to produce his own irrefutable and verifiable evidence. All too rarely does Jonathan do this. Clearly, Jonathan, himself, is fascinated by such stories. Doubtless most of us have a secret delight in some of these weird and wonderful apocryphal tales of the distant past. But most who take their subject matter seriously do not pass these off as likely fact. Thus we would counsel all who choose the Gray books for their reading material to ask the question, and ask it frequently—“Where is the evidence?” Where indeed! Ron Wyatt follows a quite different pattern in his work. Much of his “finds” were generated by impressions or guesswork. Instances follow: While walking together [with the head of the Department of Antiquities in Jerusalem in 1978] in this area they were talking about Roman antiquities and Ron’s left hand pointed to a site and he said, “That’s Jeremiah’s Grotto and the Ark of the Covenant is there.” (Transcript of words spoken by Mary Nell Wyatt on a video played throughout Australia in February, 1999 and on other occasions in other countries).

Speaking of the above, Mary Nell Wyatt asserts-...he knew it was a supernatural experience (Mary Nell Wyatt, Ark of the Covenant, p. 2)

Other instances of premonitions leading to discoveries are cited: The animal skins were covering a gold veneered table with a raised moulding around the side which consisted of an alternating bell and a pomegranate. It only took him a moment to realize that at the least this WAS an object from the first temple! (Mary Nell Wyatt, op. cit. p.15, emphasis in the original). ... he realised that the crack in the ceiling was the end of the crack he had found in the elevated cross-hole many feet above him, and the black substance was blood which had fallen through the crack (Ibid.). ... instant realisation of what had happened here dawned on him... He KNEW the Ark was in the stone case. (Ibid., emphasis in original).

50

HOLY RELICS

But the most overwhelming realisation was that Christ’s Blood had actually fallen on to the Mercy Seat. (Ibid.)

We note that by Mary Nell’s testimony the only evidence Ron stated that he had seen at this point was a black streak on the crack. He had not taken a sample of the black streak and examined it. He simply had a hunch. No one, not even a Professor of Hematology, could possibly have known by observation alone that the black streak was blood. Further, he knew that the Mercy Seat was under the lid of the stone case, yet he had not yet removed the lid of the stone case. He even “realised” that there was blood upon this Mercy Seat. This hardly sounds like the work of an archaeologist. It is more akin to the mark of a seer. Ron claimed on one occasion that he had spoken to Christ (see chapter entitled “Other Deceptions”). It would seem that he was heedless of Christ’s many warnings that false Christs would appear. Displaying dangerous disregard of these warnings Ron could tell that He [the presumed christ] knew everything about him. (Sabbath House Newsletter No. 11, Oct. 11, 1998)

It is little wonder that— Another asked Ron if he is a prophet. —(Sabbath House Newsletter No.11, Oct.11, 1998)

Archaeology is a tedious and careful discipline. It is usual for archaeologists to hold hopes and theories but they do not know in a flash of inspiration. It takes most careful evaluation, checking and re-checking, consultation with fellow archaeologists in order to ensure they have missed nothing. Ron Wyatt is an archaeologist out of the conventional mode. Of course, if he has produced evidence confirmed and irrefutable, then his unorthodox methods bear support. But if he displays no evidence in relation to discoveries such as the Ark of the Covenant and the chariot wheels and Noah’s grave, for example, it would be incautious of us to accept his modus operandi.

10 I

The Blood On the Mercy Seat

the most remarkable archaeological feat of all time Ron Wyatt has claimed to have discovered the most extraordinary relics. In a period between 1979 and 1982 Ron states that he discovered,

N SURELY

1.

The three niches which contained Pontius Pilate’s designation of Christ—Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, in the Hebrew, Latin and Greek languages. 2. The cross-hole used in Christ’s crucifixion, along with the cross-holes of the two malefactors executed with him. 3. A crack in the rock passing through Christ’s cross-hole, which was caused by the earthquake at the time of Christ’s death. 4. A cave beneath the cross-hole of Christ to which the crack extends. 5. The Ark of the Covenant from the First (Solomon’s) Temple within the cave, containing the Decalogue and also the written law of Moses. 6. Many articles and furniture from the First Apartment and objects from the Temple Treasury. 7. The blood of Christ upon the Mercy Seat. (Mary Nell Wyatt, Ark of the Covenant) Ron Wyatt claims from the public podium in various parts of the world that he has discovered blood on the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant. This is indeed a remarkable claim. This claim deserves thorough scrutiny. Before leaving the site for good, Ron took samples of the blood that had come down through the crack in the chamber ceiling. Within the crack itself there was evidence that copious amounts of blood had poured down. Some blood was splattered on top of the split-open lid of the stone case enclosing the Ark and the blood had also sprinkled down on to the Mercy Seat (Jonathan Gray, Ark of the Covenant, p. 479)

51

52

HOLY RELICS

He [Ron Wyatt] shined his flashlight around the open area and then up to the ceiling. There, he saw something that caught his eye—it was a crack in the ceiling with a black substance within the crack.... Yet he knew what was inside [the cracked stone covering the Ark of the Covenant] ... The crack in the ceiling was directly above the cracked part of the lid, where it was open, and the black substance had fallen from the crack into the case because some of it had splashed onto the lid. It was at this time, as Ron recalls, as the instant realization of what had happened here dawned on him, that he passed out. When he realized that the crack in the ceiling was the end of the crack he had found in the elevated cross-hole many feet above him, and the black substance was blood which had fallen through the crack and into the stone case, he KNEW the Ark was in the stone case. But the most overwhelming realization was that Christ’s Blood had actually fallen onto the Mercy Seat. (Mary Nell Wyatt, Ark of the Covenant, p.15, emphasis in the original)

Here we see just how much Ron “knew” before he had the least evidence. This is not the hallmark of a careful archaeologist! RonWyatt made further claims which he reiterated to Russell in their personal discussion in Melbourne on September 30, 1998. The dried samples were soaked in saline solution for three days. Using an electron microscope, it was possible to find the chromosomal content of the blood. (Jonathan Gray, op.cit. p. 479)

Admittedly Gray and Wyatt are at odds over where the blood tests were performed. Gray plainly states that: Upon his return home to Nashville, Tennessee, Ron had the blood analyzed. Through his work at hospitals, he had contacts. This simplified matters. (Ibid.)

On the other hand Ron Wyatt, in his face to face conversation with Russell, specifically denied that the blood had ever been examined in the United States. He claimed, as he also stated in his public addresses in Melbourne and Ballarat in Australia in September 1998, that the blood chromosome count was undertaken only in a laboratory in Jerusalem. It is hard to understand how Gray got this detail so wrong. Surely Wyatt has not altered his statement on this important point of evidence. Only the two men can explain this major discrepancy. However Ron’s statement to Russell is, at the least, curious. At the opening of the Wyatt Archaeological Research Museum in Gatlinburg, Tennessee in 1994 Wyatt claimed the blood samples were soon to be analyzed. The camera then focused on a Dr. Hyler whom Wyatt said was an experi-

The Blood On the Mercy Seat

53

enced geneticist who would be soon analyzing the blood. Here are Wyatt’s exact words. And so anyway there will come a time when we will show all this. Dr. Hyler, a friend and fellow worker—we plan to have him do this analysis. He has several years’ experience with electron microscopes and there is a uniqueness about the blood of Christ. So nobody will be able to say it did not happen and that Christ was not divine (5-hour video sent by Jim Pinkoski to Colin, March 1999).

This quote indicates that Wyatt planned to have the alleged blood sample analyzed in America, not Jerusalem, more than twelve years after claiming to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant. It also reveals that before the analysis had been made Wyatt had proclaimed that the blood of Jesus was unique presumably when compared with human blood—an amazing speculation without evidence. A further unexplained mystery is why, if Ron Wyatt had samples of the “blood” in 1982, he had done nothing to arrange scientific analysis of it for more than twelve years. All these issues greatly diminish the credibility of Ron Wyatt’s claims. Even more startling is the claimed number of chromosomes said to have been found in the blood cells. In a normal human cell, we have 46 chromosomes. The chromosomes contain the genes. We receive 23 chromosomes from our mother and the same number from our father. Two human cells are an exception to this generalization. The male sperm and the female ovum contain only 23 chromosomes. Thus when fertilization occurs the full complement of 46 chromosomes is found in the zygote, the fertilized cell from which a human embryo develops. Gray reported: The blood analysis from the Ark chamber showed a total of only 24 chromosomes. Of these, 23 were derived from the mother. And there was one “Y” chromosome. This indicated that the blood belonged to a male (Jonathan Gray, op.cit., p.484).

If confirmed, this would be the most astounding discovery of all time in the sciences of Biology, Genetics and Hematology. No living individual has ever been known to survive with such a massive chromosomal deficiency. Indeed it is known that if even one of the autosomes (the 44 non-sex chromosomes) is missing, it is incompatible with life. Yet here is a claim that 22 autosomes are absent in an individual who lived to an age where he could shed “copious amounts of blood” (Ibid., p. 479). It is true that it is possible to survive into adult life with an absence of one sex chromosome provided the sex chromosome present is an X chro-

54

HOLY RELICS

mosome. It needs to be understood that the Y chromosome is very much smaller than the X chromosome. We males are deficient in genetic material compared with females. Because of the relatively small amount of genetic material in the Y chromosome, its absence is not necessarily incompatible with life. Russell has examined three women with only 45 chromosomes. In each case the missing chromosome was a sex chromosome; not one of the 44 non-sex chromosomes (known as autosomes) was missing. In medical terms, these women are said to have Turner’s Syndrome. Each of the three patients whom Russell examined, two in the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith Hospital in London and one in the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, manifested the typical features of the syndrome— subnormal intelligence, infertility, an absence in adult life of secondary sexual characteristics such as breast development and pubic and axillary hair. Each had a webbed neck. Thus these women were far from normal. The assertion that careful medical examination revealed blood cells containing only 24 chromosomes is a matter of the most amazing nature. Jonathan Gray was not in error when he wrote, No human blood like this had ever been known to exist. Nowhere on the earth! (Ibid., 484)

Yet, curiously, Jonathan Gray goes on to make a claim which is quite absurd. Understandably he does not document it: There have been known examples of females born with only half the normal chromosome count of 23, instead of 46 (Ibid., p. 485)

In this claim Jonathan was simply quoting a 1994 two-page paper produced by Wyatt Archaeological Research. Jonathan would have been welladvised to have checked this absurd claim before passing it on. This statement is absolutely and unequivocally false. Such a situation would be even more remarkable than the claim that Christ’s blood possessed 24 chromosomes. Mary Nell Wyatt, Ron Wyatt’s wife, claims that, I, myself had been able to take a small sample, rehydrate it over a 3 day period, and view the red blood cells through the microscope. (Mary Nell Wyatt, op cit., p.23)

The claim has even been made that the blood cells were seen, after rehydration, to divide, thus proving them to still be alive. (Ron Wyatt’s videotaped informal meeting at Amazing Truth Ministry, Victoria, Australia, January 30, 1999).

The Blood On the Mercy Seat

55

Let us now examine some of these claims. The first fact which we address is that the evidence of the existence of this unique blood has not yet been produced. The reason generally provided is that ... the information that it is permissible to reveal is already out. (Jonathan Gray, Ark of the Covenant, p. 495)

Well we may ask, Who has the right to withhold or approve the release of the blood findings? The answer provided is, the Israeli Authorities. In Russell’s private conversation with Ron Wyatt, which took place in the presence of nine witnesses, Ron explained that the Israeli Government expressed the view that if the Ark of the Covenant was discovered, extreme right wing Jewish religious zealots would attempt to blow up the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s most sacred sites, and rebuild the Jewish Temple on the crest of Mount Zion in its place, so that the Ark of the Covenant could once more rest in the Most Holy Place. Russell questioned Ron as to why, then, he was speaking from the public platform in North America, Australia, New Zealand and Europe, loudly proclaiming that he had discovered the very object that the Israelis feared would lead to a “holy” war of apocalyptic proportions in the Middle East. Ron replied in terms not dissimilar to those stated by Jonathan Gray as quoted in the paragraph above—that the Israeli Authorities had prohibited him from producing for public scrutiny the results of the blood tests, but did not object to him detailing his discovery of the Ark of the Covenant nor verbally informing his audiences of the results of the blood tests. Such an extremely limited prohibition on the part of the Israeli Government is strange indeed. Jonathan Gray commenting on this matter, only makes the Israeli stance all the more difficult to fathom for he states, recalling a conversation with Jed Brewer, an attendee at one of his Seminars, This is a most sensitive issue, my friend. Just try to ponder the effect this discovery will have on the Jewish people. And the problems it generates for the political leaders in Israel. There is information which cannot yet be revealed, for security reasons. Just be patient and await the time when we can do more. Hopefully that may be soon. (Ibid., p. 497)

11

A Fictitious Conversation

Jonathan Gray’s fictitious discussion with Dr. David Pennington (PD as he designates him—see chapter entitled “A Consistent Pattern”) Jonathan claims to have spoken the words which follow. As we have shown in the Chapter entitled “Consistent Pattern,” the words quoted come from an exchange of correspondence and not, as claimed, a face to face discussion. In this correspondence Dr. Pennington very reasonably requested to be supplied with

I

N

... the name of the laboratory which tested Ron’s blood samples, its address, or preferably fax number, the date, or approximate date, the samples [of blood] were sent, and any code number or name under which they were identified. (Jonathan Gray, Ark of the Covenant, p. 491)

Jonathan replied in writing, referring to Dr. Pennington in rather patronizing words, P.D., dear man, you will learn the details at the same time as everyone else. There are details we have been sworn by the host government not to disclose yet. Meanwhile the lab does not want to be bothered by an avalanche of requests. You must watch and wait. There were persons in Jesus’ day who were constantly demanding, “Show me this, prove me this.” And who would not be convinced if one rose from the dead. (Ibid., p. 491)

This totally unsatisfactory reply requires analysis. No one can dispute the fact that Jonathan Gray produced no material evidence in answer to Dr. Pennington’s rightful request for evidence upon which to base his evaluation of the claim which has been publicly proclaimed byWyatt and Gray in Africa, Australia and New Zealand, Europe, North America, Papua New Guinea and Asia. To explain to Dr. Pennington that he would learn the details of the blood analysis when others do, manifestly is unhelpful.

56

A Fictitious Conversation

57

The second response—claiming that “we” have made a promise to the Israeli Government not to disclose certain details, strongly implying that one of these details is the blood analysis—lacks credibility. In Russell’s conversation with Ron Wyatt on September 30, 1998, this was Ron Wyatt’s response also. In using the pronoun “we,” it would seem that Jonathan Gray includes himself as having given the very same assurance as Ron Wyatt to the Israeli Government. This is impossible since Jonathan nowhere lays claim to having personally viewed the blood report of the chromosomal count. Perhaps Jonathan is merely using “we” in the sense of colleagueship as a co-worker with Ron Wyatt. Let us return to the claimed vow made to the Israeli government not to reveal certain details. As we have seen earlier, this vow is related to the fact that fanatical religious zealots in Israel would likely cause a Middle East conflict of Armageddon proportions, should the Ark of the Covenant be discovered. If this is the concern of the Israeli Government, then we are entitled to ask the following six questions. These questions are most important and cry out for credible answers: 1. If it is the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant which is the focus of Jewish religious zeal, which we do not dispute, why then has the stern Israeli Government taken such a benign attitude to Wyatt and Gray publishing this very information worldwide in public lectures, private conversations, video reports, books and widely-distributed advertising materials, even to the point of enclosing the latter in the Melbourne Herald-Sun, Melbourne’s newspaper with the largest readership? Yet we have already documented Jonathan’s claim that “the information that is permissible to reveal is already out” (Ibid., p. 495). Both Wyatt and Gray claim their public revelations of the discovery of the most sacred object of Jewish worship has the permission of the Israeli government. Quite frankly we are compelled to state that this is simply not credible. Either the Israeli authorities are concerned over the Wyatt “discoveries” and ban all information concerning them or they are unconcerned and do not care in the slightest how widely Wyatt and Gray proclaim the “discoveries.” Evidence will be produced in later chapters to confirm the obvious fact that Israeli authorities are quite unconcerned about the claimed “discoveries.” (See chapters entitled “An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition” and “The Concerns of the Israeli Authorities”) 2. The next question, which requires more than a glib answer, is, “Do the Israeli authorities really believe that the Ark of the

58

HOLY RELICS

Covenant has been discovered?” If they do not, this would well account for their apparent contentment with “the find” being broadcast all over our planet. But such a conclusion would seriously undercut the Wyatt claim that he has confided in the Government the nature of his “discovery” and was required to promise not to reveal certain matters. 3. The third question which is pertinent to the matter is, Why are the Israelis so disinterested in the worldwide dispersion of the information of the very object which could spark a devastating war for them, yet they are absolutely adamant that the laboratory results concerning the chromosome numbers in the blood must not be revealed? Yet it is plainly of no concern to Israeli authorities that that “report” be revealed verbally. (See chapter entitled “An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition.”) It is here that the explanations provided is totally lacking in credibility. It is surely time for Christians to consider these matters carefully lest they believe unsubstantiated claims to their eternal danger, remembering that error is never benign. 4. Why would the Israelis fear the revelation of the laboratory report of Christ’s blood’s chromosomal number? Surely it is not of more concern to the Israeli Government than the claim of the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant itself. Let it not be forgotten that we are dealing with the Israeli fears concerning a Middle East war. This is the context of Wyatt’s and Gray’s claims. Let us not sidetrack ourselves by a flight of the mind to the Israelis’ antagonism against any suggestion that Christ was divine and conceived of the Holy Spirit. It was not in that context that either of these men proposed the Israeli prohibition on the revealing of the laboratory blood report. 5. Since neither the Jews nor the Moslems believe that Christ was divine, the former executing him as a rebel leader, and the latter demoting him to no more than a human being with a prophetic gift, the blood claims would not be relevant to either side in an Israeli-Arab conflict. Those claims would only be relevant to deny Christ’s divinity. Again we emphasize that this is not the context in which Wyatt and Gray speak of the prohibitions. Our fifth question thus is, Why is the Israeli Government said to be so concerned about the blood report when they know full well that it is not the discovery of such a matter, so irrelevant to both sides, which would inflame a war between Islam and Judaism?

A Fictitious Conversation 6.

59

If the Israeli Government truly believes these claims of Ron Wyatt and is convinced that his discovery is likely to inflame Middle East tensions and ignite a war, why is Ron Wyatt so frequently granted entry to Israel? In the period 1977–1998 Ron Wyatt has made 120 trips to the Middle East (International Discovery Times, 1998, p. 7), a large number of which have been to Israel. The usual answer provided is that the Israeli Government has trust in Ron Wyatt’s integrity. Such an explanation hardly measures up to the facts. Ron Wyatt is asserting that he has discovered the Ark of the Covenant, the central issue in the claimed Israeli fears. He does claim to have discovered Christ’s unique blood. Thus he has not withheld key matters of information. But the source of even much greater suspicion, if the Israeli Government were inclined to believe the Wyatt claims, is the fact that both he and Jonathan Gray conduct tour groups around the sites. Such an opening up of this material to many others would surely cause a major concern. The Israeli Government is tough. It would not be afraid to ban entry to any man who possesses information and proclaims that information, which is likely to imperil the very existence of the nation of Israel. We shall see later that Ron Wyatt is certainly not respected by the Israeli authorities (See Chapter entitled “An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition”). We are compelled by the evidence to believe that the Israeli Government holds no fears concerning Ron Wyatt’s discoveries, probably because they believe there is no credible evidence to support the claims. Further, we would emphasize that no one has been permitted to verify Ron Wyatt’s three major claims: 1. The discovery of the Ark of the Covenant. 2. The discovery of the furnishings of the First Apartment of the Heavenly Sanctuary. 3.The discovery of blood containing only 24 chromosomes. There has been no reticence on the part of either Ron Wyatt or Jonathan Gray to take these claims by various means throughout the world. But there is every reticence to produce the evidence. The alibis that are provided for this reticence we would conclude are not credible. We return to Jonathan Gray’s letter to David Pennington. It will be noticed that Jonathan suggests that the laboratory would not “want to be bothered by an avalanche of requests” (Ark of the Covenant, p. 491). Beyond dispute this is Jonathan’s own claim. He could not have possibly

60

HOLY RELICS

consulted with the laboratory on this matter. How may we be certain of this fact? Simply, Jonathan Gray states, as we have seen, that the blood analysis was conducted in the United States. Ron Wyatt, contradicting Gray’s statement, publicly declared that the tests were undertaken in Jerusalem. Ron Wyatt informed Russell in the presence of nine witnesses that he had never, prior to September 30, 1998, had the blood tested in the United States in spite of what he had said at the opening of his museum in 1994. Thus it would have been quite impossible for Jonathan to have learned that the laboratory possessed a distaste for a flood of inquiries for he did not even know upon which continent the “tests” were performed. Further, Jonathan underestimates the egos of most scientists. The more requests they receive concerning their discoveries, the more the majority enjoy the notoriety. They prepare standard replies. Those who do not enjoy such publicity simply place the requests in their waste-paper baskets and add the postage stamps from all over the world to their philatelic collections. Those who discard the letters received are very few. Finally, Jonathan attempts to place a sense of guilt upon David Pennington, equating Dr. Pennington’s reasonable request for valid confirmation alongside those who demanded miracles of Christ before they would believe. This comparison is invalid. Christ performed numerous miracles, but only where there was a need and when there was faith in His healing power. The evidence was before their very eyes. In the case of Ron Wyatt’s claim, no evidence whatsoever has been produced in the matter of the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant which he has claimed. Some cite Christ’s condemnation of the apostle Thomas for his disbelief in Christ’s resurrection and misapply this incident as an example of the unbelief of those who doubt the veracity of Ron Wyatt’s discovery. Let us calmly evaluate Thomas’ situation. He had heard Christ’s words on a number of occasions stating that He would rise from the dead on the third day. We quote one such occasion. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. (Matthew 16:21)

Other instances are recorded in Matthew 17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:20; 24:46. Thus Thomas had the plain words of Christ upon which to base the veracity of the other ten disciples’ claim that they had seen the risen Saviour. This is the reason why Jesus’ gentle rebuke was justified:

A Fictitious Conversation

61

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed (John 20:29)

But notice Jesus did not, because of his unbelief, deny Thomas full evidence: Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27)

How different are Ron Wyatt’s claims in the matter of the Ark of the Covenant! He has provided no comparable evidence. Even his attempts to claim he has fulfilled Spirit of Prophecy statements that the Ten Commandments will be revealed at the end of time, cannot be sustained. In Wyatt’s discovery nothing has been revealed. Thus Dr. David Pennington had full reason to conclude that the answer which he received from Jonathan Gray written in his personal letter to David, was the style of answer one could expect from someone who possessed no evidence whatsoever. Rest assured that David did not state, “I understand” as reported in the Ark of the Covenant, p.491. David understood only one matter as a result of their correspondence and he understood it all too well —alibis had been offered him in place of evidence, and each of these alibis was devoid of credibility.

12 C

HRIST

The Question of the Blood Deepens

died for us. This is the testimony of Scripture:

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. ... But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. -Romans 5:6,8 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. -Romans 6:10

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. -Romans 8:34 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.... But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. -Romans 14:9,15 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? -1 Corinthians 8:11 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. -1 Corinthians 15:3 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. -2 Corinthians 5:14,15 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. -1 Thessalonians 4:14 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ. Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. -1 Thessalonians 5:9,10

62

The Question of the Blood Deepens

63

The Bible thus attests to the fact that Christ died for our sins. It was not a make-believe death. It was real in every sense of the word, a death as complete as that of the lamb slain in the typical services. Christ was without dispute the Lamb of God. The Spirit of Prophecy plainly states that Christ’s divinity did not die: Humanity died: divinity did not die (Selected Messages Book.1, p. 301).

Thus two matters are settled by inspiration: 1. Christ’s humanity died on the cross. 2. His divinity did not die on the cross. Christ’s humanity included three aspects (Desire of Ages, p. 117): 1. Weakened physical capacity 2. Reduced mental capacity 3. Lowered moral worth Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same: that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. Hebrews 2:14

When Christ died he did die. But now we have the claim that not all of Christ died, for Ron Wyatt claims that His blood, a vital part of every living human being, did not die. If this claim is genuine then it could hardly be said that Christ truly died for the sins of the world. Mary Nell Wyatt claims, I myself had been able to take a small sample, rehydrate it over a 3day period, and view the red blood cells through the microscope (Mary Nell Wyatt, op. cit., p. 23).

Jonathan Gray, prompted by his wife, Josephine, made much of the biblical statement, For the life of the flesh is in the blood. (Leviticus 17:11)

Employing his novelist style of writing, Jonathan tells us that Josephine brought this text to his attention one morning at 5 am: “Honey, come in! Listen to this!” She was sitting up in bed a blanket over her shoulders, with the book of Leviticus before her. “It says here ‘the life of the flesh is in the blood.’Chapter 17 verse 11. Well? ...” “That’s right”, I confirmed. “But what are you getting at?” “Hear me through, darling. I have been reading a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah [Psalm 16:10] and it’s quoted in the New Testament book of Acts: ‘Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither

64

HOLY RELICS

wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. [Acts 2:27] Honey, do you see a connection?” “I’m not sure,” I said. “I need a stroll in the early morning air.” Outside was coal black. An almost eerie stillness. Above, the Milky Way floated brilliantly close. A gentle, cool breeze brushed my face. My mind began to churn... The life of the flesh is in the blood ... neither will you permit your Holy One to see corruption. Suddenly it flashed. “That’s it!” I heard myself shouting, glad that nobody could hear me. “Yes, there is a connection. If this were the Lord’s intention concerning His Son’s flesh, that it should not decay or be corrupted, and if the life of the flesh is in the blood, might He not also have had a purpose in preserving remains of His Son’s blood, not to be devoured by insects?” (The Ark of the Covenant, pp. 482,483, ellipses in original)

Jonathan Gray, in this rather extraordinary recollection, does not make his thinking clear to the reader. We suspect that he is not leading his readers to believe that live blood was in Christ’s dead body so that His flesh would not decay after death. Yet his words come near to implying this. From the statement that Christ’s flesh would not see corruption Jonathan appears to take a rather large leap of logic in order to inform us that Christ’s blood, therefore, was preserved from being devoured by insects. He further reports that he recalled what Ron had said after the microscope inspection of the blood from the cavern. There was movement in it. It was living blood. (Ibid., 483)

The presence of movement is not evidence of life. Inanimate objects display a form of movement known as Brownian movement. Thus, if Ron is correctly quoted, he has made a claim which is not proven by his observation, even if it be accepted that he was examining Christ’s blood. And manifestly Ron has provided no proof whatsoever that he possesses samples of Christ’s blood. Despite this latter fact Jonathan Gray, who has never seen the blood, assures us that— Well, we at least know this: the blood has been preserved. (Ibid.)

In fact Jonathan does not know this on the basis of evidence. It is an act of faith in Ron Wyatt’s claim, in the absence of any production of evidence. This fact if overlooked would imperil our search for truth in this matter. The passage cited from Leviticus 17:11 is dealing with dietary matters.

The Question of the Blood Deepens

65

It is portion of a passage of Scripture prohibiting the eating of blood. This passage most assuredly is not stating that the Israelites should not eat blood because, even after the carcass is prepared for consumption, it still possesses living blood. If this were so then animals would also possess incorruptible blood. Let us remember Sister White’s wise counsel that before accepting any point of doctrine we must demand a plain thus saith the Lord (See Great Controversy, p. 595, emphasis added). Neither Wyatt nor Gray has yet produced a single plain passage of Scripture that states that Christ’s blood has never died. Until such is forthcoming it would be a most unwise course to accept Ron Wyatt’s claim in this matter. Reports that the “reconstituted blood of Christ” was also seen, under microscopic examination, to possess dividing cells, is an assertion of a startling nature. (Sabbath House Newsletter No. 11, Oct. 1998, p. 8) It almost sounds as if mature blood cells reproduce like amoeba, by cell division. They do not! Between 99.8 and 99.9 per cent of cells in the blood are erythrocytes—red blood cells. This accounts for the color of blood. Leucocytes, white blood cells, consist of about 0.1 to 0.2 per cent. We have ignored thrombocytes (blood platelets) in this calculation. They constitute approximately 5 per cent of blood cells. Mature red blood cells possess no nuclei. Thus they possess no chromosomes, no genes, no DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid). Thus, Mature red blood cells are quite simple in structure. They lack a nucleus and can neither reproduce nor carry on extensive metabolic activities (Gerard Tortora and Nicholas Anagnostakos, Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, 6th Edition, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1990 p. 548).

Not until Ron Wyatt came to Australia in 1999 did we hear of him recognizing that mature red cells do not divide. (Video made at Amazing Truth Ministry, January 30, 1999). Since Dr. Pennington and Russell had been emphasizing this fact, no doubt Ron Wyatt had been informed of this objection by his supporters. All red blood cells are formed, not by division in the circulating blood, but in the bone marrow, and on occasion in the liver and spleen. They are derived, as are the white cells and the platelets, from a stem cell known as a hemocytoblast. This cell matures in the bone marrow through a series of steps to a mature red blood cell. There are five distinct cell forms between the hemocytoblast and the mature red cell—the proerythroblast, early erythroblast, intermediate erythroblast, the late erythroblast and the reticulocyte. All these cells possess nuclei, except the reticulocytes, which retain only a minute amount of nuclear material which is insufficient for cell divi-

66

HOLY RELICS

sion. Reticulocytes constitute about one per cent of the red cells in the peripheral blood. They cannot multiply by cell division. The production of the various white blood cells and the blood platelets follows a similar course. By way of illustration we select the development of one of the white cells—the neutrophil. Other white cells, the eosinophils, basophils, monocytes, lymphocytes and plasma cells develop in a similar fashion. We choose the neutrophil because it is the most numerous and Russell possesses vivid memories of having, 40 year ago, to describe the maturation process of neutrophils in a 45-minute essay in his medical course. The process is: Hemocytoblast » Myeloblast » Promyelocyte » Neutrophilic Myelocyte » Neutrophilic Band Cell » Neutrophils. This process occurs in the bone marrow, not the circulating blood. While red blood cells and platelets contain no nuclei, mature white cells do. But they do not normally multiply in the peripheral blood of a healthy person. Only in leukemia victims do immature white cells multiply in the peripheral blood system. Thus this claim that the “reconstituted blood of Christ” was dividing is a fabrication. We can be certain that Christ did not suffer from leukemia. We know that Christ’s blood was not different from ours. Scripture plainly thus testifies: Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. Hebrews 2:14

See chapter entitled “Counting Chromosomes” for a further discussion of this claim. Jonathan Gray makes the unsubstantiated statement that The Messiah’s body was changed into the glorious body on the third day, and his blood has remained in an uncorrupted state ever since (Ark of the Covenant, p. 483).

The second claim is destroyed by the testimony of the only man to have “seen” the blood, Ron Wyatt: When he realized that the crack in the ceiling was the end of the crack he had found in the elevated cross-hole many feet above him, and the black substance was blood which had fallen through the crack and into the stone case, he KNEW the Ark was in the stone case. But the most overwhelming realization was that Christ’s Blood had actually fallen onto the Mercy Seat (Mary Nell Wyatt, Ark of the Covenant,

The Question of the Blood Deepens

67

p.15, emphasis of the word “black” added).

Living oxygenated (arterial) blood is red in color. Living deoxygenated (venous) blood is purple in color. Dead blood is black or brown. No more needs to be said on this matter. Whatever the black substance was that Ron Wyatt claims to have seen in the crack, it was not living blood. Another question requires brief mention. The Bible specifically states that it was not blood alone which flowed copiously from Christ’s side. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. -John 19:34

It is proper for us to ask, When, in the type, was blood mixed with water used in any ceremony? When was a mixture of blood and water placed upon the Mercy Seat? Wyatt’s claim that blood fell on the Mercy Seat is flawed. It was a mixture of blood and water which flowed from Christ’s side. Well we may inquire, Where is the preservation of that water? (See chapter entitled “The Day of Atonement” for a discussion of the mixture of blood and water) We will await heaven in order to understand, in full, Christ’s placement of His blood upon the Mercy Seat of the heavenly sanctuary in atonement for our sins. Inspiration assures that this He will perform. Inspiration says nothing concerning the preservation of His blood on earth. The Roman Catholics make such claims, but not Seventh-day Adventists. We possess no shroud of Turin. The prophecy concerning Christ’s body not seeing corruption was fulfilled in that Christ rose only a period of about 36 hours after His death. This period of time was insufficient for his flesh to have decayed.

13 A

Confused Blood Reports

FURTHER matter requires discussion. Sabbath House Newsletter No.

11, Oct. 1998 p.3 reported that:

After the Israeli laboratory did the tests, Ron asked them to place the blood in a growth medium, something Ron is very familiar with in his profession. The Israelis at first would not do this as they said the blood is too old and dried out. Ron asked, “Just for me.” They did it to please him. After 72 hours they were amazed to observe that the cells were doubling and doubling. The Blood is alive! The Israelis cried out, “where did you get this? What is it?” Ron, with deep emotion, told them, “This is the Blood of your Messiah!” They turned white, Ron said, and began to tear at their hair and cry out. Ron reminded us of the text, “they shall wail because of Him.” (Rev. 1:7). Ron was in tears as he told us.

We will shortly discuss the mechanism of production of blood cells in the chapter entitled “Counting Chromosomes.” Cells in the blood stream do not normally multiply. There can be no “doubling and doubling.” And remember also that the mature red cells cannot divide at all. Also remember we have no way of questioning the laboratory technicians in order to validate this report for we have been refused the right to learn the name and address of the testing laboratory. In view of these facts it would be unwise to accept the account of these matters presented above. When questioned about this matter at Amazing Truth Ministry (January 30, 1999), Ron suggested yet another possibility—that God miraculously made the cells to divide to give mankind proof that they were alive. We repeat, since there has been absolutely no verification of this claimed multiplication of cells, we would do well to withhold acceptance of the claim. At the Amazing Truth meeting Ron stated that red cells cannot divide. It would seem that this acknowledgment is a result of Dr. Pennington’s and our statements on the matter, for we have not heard this

68

Confused Blood Reports

69

stated nor read it in his writings until after this information was shared with him. Ron Wyatt’s medium would surely have a wonderful commercial and medical potential for it would permit the growth of blood cells outside human bodies, and thus reconstituted blood containing these cells could be guaranteed free of AIDS, hepatitis, syphilis and other bacteria, fungi and viruses. The collection of blood from blood donors along with blood shortages would be things of the past. Perhaps Ron Wyatt who is “very familiar” with this particular growth medium could supply his readers with its composition. There could be no possible danger to Israeli peace in revealing this information nor could it upset the anti-Christian sentiments of earnest Jews. This information would be no more relevant to these matters than our revealing the fact that the medium used in the growth of many bacteria is composed of blood agar. Finally, it is claimed that: Upon his return to Nashville, Tennessee, Ron had the blood analyzed. Through his work at hospitals, he had contacts. This simplified matters. The dried samples were soaked in a saline solution for three days. Using an electron microscope it was possible to find the chromosomal content of the blood. (Jonathan Gray, The Ark of the Covenant, p. 479).

A host of questions are aroused. Among these questions are, 1. What was the name of the hospital in Nashville where Jonathan claims the dried blood was placed in saline for 3 days? 2. On September 30, 1998 Ron Wyatt told Russell in a face to face conversation in the presence of nine witnesses that he had never had the blood tested in the United States. Where then, did Jonathan Gray obtain this contrary information? An explanation is required. Jonathan’s book, Ark of the Covenant, relied very heavily on Wyatt Archaeology Research publications, quoting them verbatim in lengthy passages, usually without acknowledgment. 3. How did Ron Wyatt get this blood through United States quarantine authorities, for most western countries prohibit the passage of blood products across their borders without special permits? 4. If Ron was prohibited by both the Israeli government and an angel from providing the results of the chromosome tests to his listeners and readership, why was that information permitted to be provided, through their test results, to laboratory technicians

70

HOLY RELICS

in both Tennessee and Jerusalem? At least in the case of the angel, prompted by divine fore-knowledge from God, he surely would have warned Ron against having the blood tested at all, for that would place the documentation into the hands of other humans with a great likelihood that they would disperse such a remarkable finding before the Sunday laws were enacted. There is plainly an anomaly here which requires explanation, if such exists. 5. We are intrigued by the use of an electron microscope in order to determine the number of chromosomes in cells. We are quite unaware of it having the least value in the detection of the number of chromosomes in cells. This is not the means used to undertake chromosome counts. Ron Wyatt needs to document the use of this means as a valid method of detection of chromosome counts. The great emphasis in the reports of these findings is that the blood was alive. Yet the technique of chromosomal counting requires that there be dividing cells which are poisoned during the process. In addition the use of the conventional electron microscopy requires that cells being examined be dead. If they are not already dead they will be very shortly after being placed in the extreme vacuum of the electron microscope and bombarded with very high energy electrons—many thousands of volts. Satan has been at his wits end to find means to pierce the armor of God’s dedicated people. We have seen them nobly stand against the destruction by the New Theology of the sanctuary message. But at last his infernal subtlety has found a chink in the armor of many of us—he can destroy with symbols that faith which he could not destroy in another way. Thus many of us have accepted a totally unconfirmed report that blood, contrary to the plainest evidence of Scripture, fell on the Mercy Seat at the Passover, thus supporting the devil’s claim that the atonement was completed at the cross and that our sins were there blotted out. This denies the explicit statements of Leviticus 16 which mentions the atonement 15 times in relation to the Day of Atonement acts. These atonement acts occur beyond the atoning sacrifice of the goat to the completion of Christ’s atoning work in heaven. God’s faithful saints, likewise, have withstood Satan’s assaults on Christ’s human nature. But now with two absolutely baseless assertions of Ron Wyatt, he has beguiled us. Many of us have accepted the claim that Christ had totally different blood from us for it lives on after death. But God testifies otherwise:

Confused Blood Reports

71

For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same (Hebrews 2:14, emphasis added).

Ron Wyatt has convinced many, again with no evidence whatsoever, that Christ was made totally different from us in that he possessed only 24 chromosomes. Thus is denied the plainest words of Scripture: Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:17,18, emphasis added)

In these assertions concerning Christ’s blood and His genetic structure, doctrines so firmly and rightly held by God’s flock have been seriously compromised. These are: 1. Christ was physically the same as us. This claim of Ron Wyatt destroys Desire of Ages p. 49 and p. 117 as well as the Scriptures cited above, and Hebrews 4:15, Romans 1:3 and 8:3 among other passages of Scripture. 2. The high priestly ministry of Christ because it is predicated upon His possession of our nature, not some freak human nature (See Hebrews 2:17 above) 3. Victory over sin, for this is also dependent upon Christ possessing our nature and not a physical nature which none of us could ever possess, for none of us could possibly live with 24 chromosomes. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)

Without Christ to succour us when tempted, victory over sin would be impossible. Dear Brothers and Sisters, please as you have stood so nobly in the past and suffered so much for your stand, let not these utterly unsafe claims take our crowns from us. Error is never benign. This matter requires further elucidation which is the subject of the following chapter.

14

Counting Chromosomes

HEN A CELL divides, it passes through several discernible stages. Any standard Biology textbook sets forth this process. (Neil Campbell, Biology, Benjamin Cumming, 4th Edition, 1996 is one of many). Before a cell begins to divide, it is described as being in a state of interphase. During this stage chromosomes are scattered throughout the nucleus and cannot be observed or counted. An electron microscope would be utterly useless for such a purpose. As cell division commences the cell transforms into the prophase. In this phase the chromosomes condense and the nucleus loses its nuclear membrane. The chromosomes are now visible under a regular compound microscope as strings. Next the process moves to metaphase. In this stage the chromosomes are arranged in a line along the equator of the cell. The third step is anaphase. It is during this phase that chromosomes divide in two, with one copy of each chromosome travelling to opposite ends of the cell. From anaphase the process of cell division moves to telophase during which the new nuclear membranes form around the two groups of chromosomes which unravel again so that the chromosomes are once more not visible using a light microscope. This stage is usually associated with cytokinesis, the splitting of the cytoplasm, the portion of the cell outside the nucleus. Thus two distinct cells are formed, each containing a separate nucleus. The process of cell division is very complicated and takes many hours. Counting of chromosomes is only possible during cell division as this is the only time at which chromosomes can be observed. The procedure of chromosome counting in blood cells involves the following steps: 1. Red and white blood cells are separated from each other. This is necessary as red cells do not contain genetic material, while white blood cells do. Normally there are about 600 red blood

W

72

Counting Chromosomes

73

cells to every one white blood cell. Thus it is essential to separate the white blood cells from the mass of red blood cells. 2. Since normally white blood cells do not divide in the blood stream, they must be placed for several days in the presence of a chemical which stimulates division. 3. A poison is introduced to the dividing cells so that they cannot proceed beyond metaphase, thus leaving the cells at the stage where the chromosomes are aligned along the equator of the cells. 4. Next a hypotonic solution is introduced in order to induce water to enter the cells and cause them to swell. A hypotonic solution is one with a lower concentration of electrolytes than that present inside the cells. This process permits the chromosomes to be spread in order to afford easier identification. 5. Next a fixative is added. 6. The following step is to stain the cells with a special dye which is incorporated into the chromosomes and thus highlights them. 7. Finally, the specimen is examined under a light microscope and counting undertaken. No credible laboratory would utilize an electron microscope for this purpose when a light microscope suffices. It will be discerned that this somewhat complicated and precise procedure differs markedly from examination under an electron microscope. Such a microscope most certainly would be quite unable to serve any useful purpose in this procedure of chromosomal counting. Furthermore, if chromosomal counting were to be undertaken in the blood, the white blood cells would need to be totally separated from the red blood cells and the blood platelets which together constitute about 99.8 percent of the blood cells. This removal of these two cell types is essential since they contain no chromosomes. As we have seen, white blood cells do not normally multiply in the peripheral blood; they would require the introduction of a drug to stimulate cell division. Only then could a chromosomal count be undertaken upon the residue of white cells that would be killed using the technique described above. This total process is a far cry from placing under an electron microscope black blood which manifestly contains a mixture of all blood cells which are long since dead. No dead cell can ever be revived no matter how special the cell culture medium. Even if the cells were still viable none would yield their chromosome number to one viewing them through an electron microscope.

74

HOLY RELICS

Now, for the sake of completeness in exhausting this subject, we mention two recently developed, highly specialized microscopes which use the differing optical densities of the various cell constituents in order to view cells without poisoning and staining them. Chromosomes differ from other intra-cellular structures in their optical density and thus can be observed directly while live if they are undergoing the process of cell division. Two such microscopes are the Normaski special light microscope and the Phase Contrast Microscope. However, while these very expensive microscopes serve an excellent purpose in the filming of the mitotic division of cells, they are virtually useless in permitting the making of chromosomal counts. As a matter of interest it needs to be recorded that when these microscopes are utilized in order to make scientific films, the process of cell division is so slow that time lapse photography must be used in order to speed up the process in the video. Thus we would conclude that the postulated blood discovered in the crack in the rock and upon the Mercy Seat did not yield a chromosome count of 24 or any other value by the use of the technique of electron microscopy. Reports to the contrary are patently false. Another matter worthy of our consideration is that on average every one of us possesses six lethal genes—three from each parent. For most of us these genes are not expressed, for the normal paired gene from the other parent dominates. It is only when both parents pass on the same defective gene that, untreated, death results. Such diseases include such well-known genetic diseases as phenylketonuria, a genetic defect which prevents the body metabolizing one of the amino acids in protein, phenylalanine, and genetic forms of muscular dystrophy. If Mary was a genetically average human being, she would have passed on to Christ three lethal genes. Had He no paired autosomes, as would be the case if He possessed only one set of autosomes (non-sex chromosomes), He would have had His life terminated at a young age because there would have been no paired normal gene from a father to inactivate the lethal gene. Remember the chromosomes contain all our genes. Others have suggested that if Christ possessed the additional 22 chromosomes (non-sex chromosomes) it would mean that part of His nature would have been unfallen since the Holy Spirit could only provide perfect genes. We do not even commence to understand the mystery of the incarnation. But we know two salient and undeniable facts— 1. Christ possessed a fallen nature:

Counting Chromosomes

75

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3).

2.

Christ possessed flesh and blood which was identical to ours:

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; ... For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:14,16,17, emphasis added)

Prudence dictates that we accept these revealed facts and not delve into the workings of the Holy Spirit. Further, Ron Wyatt suggests that the Holy Spirit did give Christ one chromosome—the Y chromosome. If the theory holds that the Holy Spirit provides only “unfallen” chromosomes then this single Y chromosome would be sufficient to deny Christ a totally fallen nature. He would have 23 “fallen” chromosomes and one “unfallen” chromosome. When we attempt to defend the indefensible we find ourselves in severe difficulties. Yet another “scientific” theory has been advanced, based on the assumption that the only purpose of the Y chromosome is to determine masculinity. This is a scientific error. But even if it were true it would, using these assumptions, still seriously jeopardize the status of Christ’s fallen nature because He would still have one “unfallen” chromosome. But as we have said, it is incorrect to say the Y chromosome determines only masculinity. While it is true that male-determining genes such as the testis determining factor, the testis-specific protein and the Azoospermia factor—are on the Y chromosome, many other genes are not specifically masculine and match genes on the X chromosomes. We cite a few of many— the surface antigen, growth control of tooth size, the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (blood cells), Interleukin 3 receptor (nervous system), Ribosomal protein S4 (body cells) and Histocompatability factor (tissue compatibility). Note that these are not the name of the genes, but of the proteins which the individual genes produce. Gerald Stine, The New Human Genetics, p. 56; Wm C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa, 1989, sets forth the evidence that “non-masculinity” genes are present on the Y chromosomes. Another important article on this subject may be found in the prestigious scientific journal Science, Vol. 278 No. 5338, Oct.24, 1997, pp. 675–680.

76

HOLY RELICS

Thus the argument that the Holy Spirit would not provide the 22 chromosomes as they would be “unfallen” falls on the fact that the same deduction would have to be made about the postulated Y chromosome provided by the Holy Spirit. It is not for us to know how Christ possessed the same flesh and blood as we, and was made like us in “all things.” If it were, Christ would have told us. But believe it we must, for the Bible is certain. We would again emphasize that if the Holy Spirit was capable of providing a Y chromosome He is perfectly able to produce the remaining 22 autosomes. We fear that a pseudo-theology and a pseudo-science is being crafted by those who accept the Wyatt-Gray “discoveries.” On occasions these appear to be asserted, not on the basis of any knowledge, but as determined efforts to support Ron Wyatt’s statements at all costs. Some, in exasperation, revile science and scientists, overlooking the fact that Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray spare no effort to invoke scientific “support” for their claims and these have to be examined in the precise arena they have chosen. Could we gently suggest that Ron Wyatt’s words are to be judged by Scripture, not the Scripture molded to fit his assumptions. Some, we fear, are delving into scientific explanations which are dreamed up in order to explain Ron Wyatt’s scientific statements which defy basic science. We must judge Ron Wyatt’s doctrinal claims by Scripture, and basic demonstrable scientific facts unrelated to origins should not be cast aside in order to permit Ron Wyatt’s scientific faux pas to pass uncorrected.

15

A Little Lad’s Blood

N HIS book, The Ark of the Covenant, Jonathan Gray cites a most interesting medical case of a young lad aged three years who was found to possess XX sex chromosomes in his blood cells but XY sex chromosomes in the remainder of his body cells. However the conclusions which Jonathan draws from this finding are quite invalid. All normal humans possess 46 chromosomes. Of these 46 chromosomes 44 are nonsex chromosomes. These are called autosomes. Each normal human being has 2 sex chromosomes. Normal males possess one X and one Y sex chromosome. Normal females possess two X chromosomes. The details of the case as presented by Jonathan appear in the chapter entitled “A Consistent Pattern.” We repeat them here:

I

He could hardly believe his eyes! The author, Philip Cohen, quoting an article by David Bonthron and his colleagues at Edinburgh University in Nature Genetics (Volume 11, page 164), explained that a certain three-year-old boy had been found whose white blood cells contained two “X” chromosomes, the signal for a female.

To cut a long story short, they went on to explain that the probable cause was a self-activating unfertilized ovum which had subsequently (after a short time) become fertilized in the normal way. The sperm would then have entered only a part of the divided ovum, thereby creating this most unusual effect. Bonthron believed that the boy’s remarkable genetics depended on a number of highly unusual circumstances combining together, and occurring within a very short time window. “I don’t expect we’ll ever see another one,” he said.

This was an incredibly rare condition. Such male chromosomal depletion for a boy was something which, until this case, would be considered scientifically impossible. (p. 486) Apparently Jonathan extracted his information concerning this case from two secondary sources—New Scientist, October 7, 1995 and the New

77

78

HOLY RELICS

Zealand Herald, September 30, 1995. While these articles fairly represented the original article entitled “A human parthenogenetic chimaera” published by Lisa Strain and three associates of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, in the professional journal Nature Genetics, Volume 11, October 1995, the primary article contained additional significant detail. Jonathan Gray claimed that this case— ...proved the possibility of a human being existing with a considerable depletion in his chromosomal blood-count (Letter from Jonathan Gray to David Pennington dated Sept. 24, 1996).

It proved no such thing. The lad’s non-blood cells included a full complement of 46 chromosomes, including an X and a Y sex chromosome as is normal in males. Likewise the white blood cells consisted of a full complement of 46 chromosomes including two X sex chromosomes as found in normal females (Lisa Strain, et al Nature Genetics, Vol. 11, Oct. 1995, p. 165). The Journal article plainly stated that the child’s blood contained 46, XX in all [blood] cells (Ibid).

In genetics the designation “46XX” means that the child’s blood possessed a full complement of 46 chromosomes, which included two X chromosomes. Thus Jonathan Gray’s assumptions are quite wrong. This case is irrelevant to the issue of marked chromosomal depletion, for this lad possessed 46 chromosomes in all body nuclei whether found in blood cells or non-blood cells. Thus this case, interesting as it is, should never have been introduced as an example of existence of a human being with a depleted chromosome count. The scientific interest in this lad was that while he was a male because the great predominance of the cells contained XY chromosomes, his blood contained XX chromosomes, normally only found in females. Very careful and detailed testing demonstrated that the mother had provided both sets of chromosomes in the blood cells. Normally we receive 23 chromosomes from our mother and 23 chromosomes from our father. Further, these two sets from the mother were identical. Ron Wyatt’s claim is not that Christ had different chromosomes in his blood from the rest of the body. His claim is that Christ had only 24 chromosomes instead of the normal 46 in all cells of his body. This patient possessed 46 chromosomes in his entire cell nuclei. These scientists did not demonstrate a single missing chromosome, let alone a 22 chromosomal deficiency. But even this rare chromosomal anomaly led to the birth of a defective child. The Nature Genetics article reported that the three-year-old possessed

A Little Lad’s Blood

79

the following defects: 1. The left side of his face was small as compared with the right producing a distorted appearance. This condition is known as hemifacial microsomia. 2. Small testes. 3. A bifid uvula. (The soft section of the palate, divided in two) 4. A mild cleft palate. (The hard section of the palate) 5. Mild learning difficulty. 6. Intermittent aggressive behavior (Ibid.) Thus even this level of chromosomal abnormality with a full complement of 46 chromosomes in each cell did lead to the birth of a somewhat abnormal child. The loss of even one of the 44 non-sexual chromosomes causes such major malformations that it is incompatible with life. The absence of 22 chromosomes, as is claimed in the case of Christ’s blood, beggars description. Let it not be forgotten that: Normal mammalian [including human] development requires functionally distinct genes from male and female gametes [sexual cells—i.e. sperm (male) and ovum (female)] (Ibid., p.164).

It is claimed that in relation to the blood of Christ that, We are considering here the reality of a God-man, born of a virgin, and whose blood cells would comprise a total of only 24 chromosomes ... 23 from an earthly mother, and one Y chromosome from God. (Jonathan Gray, Letter to David Pennington, dated Dec. 3, 1996— ellipsis in the original).

Why would the blood cells comprise a total of only 24 chromosomes? We know of no biblical or scientific reason why this would need to be so. Indeed all evidence would point in the opposite direction. Since Jonathan Gray has not seen the elusive blood reports he dare not state that RonWyatt’s claim has been verified. If Christ possessed only 24 chromosomes He would, to understate the matter, be a most different human being. He certainly, in His humanity, would have markedly differed from us. If God could give Christ a Y chromosome, and we do not dispute this issue, why could He not bestow the remaining 22 chromosomes so that Christ could be a normal human being and not a freak of humanity as the Wyatt “finding” would indicate. Scripture claims that both Christ’s blood and His flesh were the same as ours. Why should we believe otherwise, especially when no evidence to

80

HOLY RELICS

the contrary has been produced? Why should we become excited by an unsubstantiated claim which contradicts Scripture? The Bible unequivocally states: For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [Christ] also himself likewise took part of the same (Hebrews 2:14, emphasis added).

Inspiration has spoken. Dare we contradict God’s plain word? Further weight of evidence is added, if such is required, by Paul’s declaration that, Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren (Hebrews 2:17, emphasis added).

It is time for Seventh-day Adventists to read and re-read the chapter in the Great Controversy entitled “The Scriptures a Safeguard.” Jonathan Gray has carelessly cited a medical case as evidence that it is possible to live with many chromosomes missing. The case he presented confirmed no such theory, for the child had a full complement of chromosomes in every nucleated cell examined. Of course Jonathan, we are convinced, was not deliberately falsifying the facts. His mistake was to read secondary sources rather than the primary journal article. That article may be read in almost any University Library, so it was not difficult to obtain the data. We obtained our copy from Auckland University in New Zealand. While the secondary reports did not state that the child has less than 46 chromosomes, Jonathan made a startling assertion because he did not read these secondary articles aright and did not read the original article. We have noticed that Jonathan’s writings contain numbers of examples where he has not sought to verify and critically examine the facts. The blood on the Mercy Seat is one major example of this deficiency.

16 P

Relics

to concluding our examination of the claims concerning the presence of blood upon the Mercy Seat, we would summarize the major Wyatt “discoveries”: RIOR

1. 2.

The post-hole for the cross of Christ. The crack in the stone caused by the earthquake at the time of Christ’s death. This crack ran through the post-hole. 3. A cave beneath the cross. 4. Blood had dripped from Christ through the crack, into the cave. Pastor John Coltheart, a successful Seventh-day Adventist evangelist in the 1950s and 1960s prior to his untimely death in England, produced a booklet entitled, What I Saw in Rome which was published in 1958. In this booklet Pastor Coltheart detailed his objections to the “holy” relics which abound in Catholicism in Italy. As with most Australians, his remarks were blunt. He then went on to report— The exploits in Gerusalemme (Italy—Ed.) failed to impress me, for I had only just come from the Holy Land and there had witnessed Rome’s nonsense with respect to relics and holy places. In Bethlehem the church marking the birth-place of Jesus also very conveniently has, right in the same building, a star on the floor to mark the place where Adam was created. In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Mt. Calvary (a little rock about 10 feet high) and the Tomb of Christ are just 30 feet apart. Close by is the pillar of flagellation to which Christ is supposed to have been tied while being flogged. This relic is in an iron cage, to protect it no doubt, while a long stick like a billiard cue reaches out from the column through the bars and the faithful actually queue up to kiss the cue. But the little ten-foot high Mt. Calvary is a real “wonder,” for underneath the three silver-lined cross-holes someone happily discovered, in a hole in the rock, the body of none but Adam himself—4000 years of time and a world-changing Deluge notwithstanding. As it was explained to me by the priest, at the time

81

82

HOLY RELICS

of Christ’s death the great earthquake is supposed to have rent the rock and three drops of His blood, dropping down through the fissure, just happened to fall on the skull of Adam, and thus the salvation of man was assured or the original sin of Adam expiated; I wasn’t able to get it clearly from him just which. So you see I wasn’t very impressed in St. Croce at Rome when they told me of how Helena had discovered the “true cross.” The two nails of the cross they showed me and the thorn from the crown of thorns just added to my list of others I had seen. And the index finger of Thomas in its gold receptacle was just like many other fingers I had been shown. —(John Coltheart, What I Saw in Rome, 1958, pp. 40,41)

Now let us summarize that which Pastor Coltheart was shown by the Roman Catholic priest: 1. The post-hole for the cross of Christ. 2. The crack in the stone caused by the earthquake at the time of Christ’s death. This crack ran through the post-hole. 3. A cave beneath the cross. 4. Blood had dripped from Christ through the crack, into the cave. It will be seen that over 40 years ago, (1958), well prior to Ron Wyatt’s excavations, precisely that which Ron Wyatt has claimed to have unearthed, was demonstrated to Pastor Coltheart by a Roman Catholic priest. But the site was different! It was at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, not the Calvary Escarpment. There was just one distinction. The priest claimed that it was Adam’s skeleton which lay beneath the crack and that the blood fell upon his skull. Ron Wyatt, on the other hand, claims that the relic in the cave is theArk of the Covenant and that the blood flowed onto the Mercy Seat. How can we explain this remarkable concordance of “fact” between the assertions of the Roman Catholic priest and the claims of Ron Wyatt? One rationalization put forward is that Satan was well aware of the fact that the ark was beneath the site of the cross and that Christ’s blood fell on the Mercy Seat. He recognized that one day someone was bound to make this discovery. Therefore in order to pre-empt this discovery and its electrifying implications, Satan has placed this counterfeit version into the mouth of one of his agents. In this way he hopes to cast aspersions upon the genuine discovery. One problem with this alibi is that when Danny Shelton requested a sighting of Wyatt’s cross-holes he was informed that supporters of Jim and Tammy Bakker’s group stole them (Videoed interview by Colin Standish with Danny Shelton, 26 May 1999).

Relics

83

It cannot be doubted that Satan does work in such a manner. Long before Christ’s death and resurrection, he invented Tammuz who is mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14. Those who deified Tammuz, claimed that he was murdered and rose from the dead on the third day. They symbolized the anniversary of Tammuz’s death by burning a dead log. This was accompanied by much weeping. This custom was later introduced into Britain with the burning of the Yule Log at Christmas time. On the third day of the Feast of Tammuz, his resurrection was symbolized by the branch of a live tree. This day was accompanied by great rejoicing and festivities. This tree later became transformed into the Christmas tree. Although we would thus concur that it is Satan’s custom to preempt God’s plans and in this way seek to discredit the genuine, the application of this fact in relation to Ron Wyatt’s findings does invite some questions. Two are particularly important. If the ark is under the cross site, then of course, Satan would be aware of its location. We must therefore ask ourselves the question as to why the priest substituted Adam’s body for the Ark when each of the other elements of the two accounts were virtually identical. Could not Satan provide the correct information rather than erroneous information regarding this fifth element of the “discovery”? This question is worth pondering. It would have been a great boost for the antichrist power. Further, Ron Wyatt has claimed that he discovered the cross-holes and the earthquake crack (Mary Nell Wyatt, op.cit., p. 10). But clearly someone before 1958 had discovered both the cross-holes and the crack in the rock and had attributed them to the cross-hole into which Christ’s cross was inserted and the earthquake at the time of Christ’s execution, respectively. Thus the credit for these discoveries belongs to some unknown individual of former times. In his book The Holy Land—An ARCHAEOLOGICAL GUIDE FROM EARLIEST TIMES TO 1700, the Catholic Priest, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor of the French Bible and Archaeology School in Jerusalem describes the relic: The area directly below the Greek Orthodox Chapel [in the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem] is called the Chapel of Adam, because of the tradition that Christ died where Adam had been buried. The two piers and the apse they flank are of C11 [the eleventh century]. Behind the window is the crack in the poor quality rock, which is why the quarrymen left this section untouched. (page 54)

Clearly these cross-holes and the crack were “discovered” before 1700 as the title of the book indicates.

84

HOLY RELICS

Of course this site of the crucifixion and the crack, as we have noted, is at a different location from the one Ron Wyatt promotes. It does indicate that “cross-holes” may be found elsewhere. None can be verified as the holes which held the cross of Christ unless we accept the story of the Roman Catholic priest as related to Pastor Coltheart— Helena, the mother of Constantine, built the church in 320 A.D. Later she was supposed to have gone to Jerusalem and there to have had a premonition to dig in a certain spot. She had workmen turn over the soil and discovered three crosses complete with nails and inscription. The inscription had become detached, so in order to find which was the actual cross of Christ, the papal church claims that Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, touched the three crosses on the head of a dying woman. “The Sessorian Relics of the Lord’s Passion” which I bought in Rome and which bears the official “imprimatur” of the church, says on page 18: “But scarcely was she touched with the third cross than the sick person, as though given a shock from a galvanic battery, opened her eyes, jumped from the bed and commenced to walk about the house.” (J.F. Coltheart, What I Saw in Rome, pp. 41–42, published in 1958).

We know that Ron Wyatt was not the first person to be guided by premonitions. This report claims that Helena was also. Further, once more we remind the reader that the Ark of the Covenant has not been produced, nor have any of the other artifacts from the temple, nor the blood. Let us address a hypothetical circumstance. Had we read Pastor Coltheart’s report, would we have scorned his conclusions, or embraced them? The great majority, we suspect, would have agreed with Pastor Coltheart’s assessment that the claim was “nonsense.” Further, if Pastor Coltheart had requested to view personally the skeleton of Adam with the blood resting upon his forehead, and the priest had replied that both the Israeli authorities and an angel had forbidden him to take tourists to see the skeleton, would we have believed him? I suspect that most of us would not, for he would not have confirmed his claim. Should we not demand the same standard of evidence for both claimants—the hypothetical priest and RonWyatt? There is one more claim that requires our attention. Ron Wyatt’s initial clue to the location of the correct crucifixion site was his discovery of three niches in the cliff face. He postulates that these were where the name placards describing Christ as King of the Jews were placed, one in Greek, another in Hebrew and the third in Latin. This claim appears to conflict with the Biblical record which states that Christ’s designation was placed on the cross:

Relics

85

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John 19:19)

Ron Wyatt has explained this discrepancy on the basis that the Greek word epi translated “on” also means “above.” This is quite true. If there were no other evidence from inspiration we may have to rest the case there. But we are grateful that in the English language the word “on” has no such double meaning. Nor does the word “upon.” They never mean “above.” Thus we must cite Sister White’s description of the positioning of Christ’s designation: Pilate then wrote an inscription in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and placed it upon the cross, above the head of Jesus (Desire of Ages, p. 745, emphasis added).

Like the English word “on,” the word “upon” in the English language never means “above.” Thus we conclude that Ron Wyatt’s identification of the niches for the notice boards for Christ’s name as written by Pilate is an error of conclusion. It conflicts with inspiration. We must be ever so careful to refrain from expending time and means seeking so-called holy relics. As the Catholic church has discovered, the thirst for more and more relics and more startling relics is insatiable and leads to some very weird claims. Far better are we to rest on the plain Word of God, and in humble acceptance of His Word, accept its very utterance.

17

An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition

or years Ron Wyatt has hidden behind the claim that the Israeli authorities have prohibited his revelation of the blood evidence in order to excuse his total absence of revealed evidence. At the opening of the Gatlinburg Museum, in 1994 Ron Wyatt said,

F

And so folk I have seen this [the blood of Jesus] with my own eyes and we have taken samples of this dried blood and it will be analyzed under microscopic examination and all this will be shared at a point in time when the Israeli Government will allow me to do so (5-hour video supplied by Jim Pinkoski, March 1999).

It will be noted that Wyatt did not mention the prohibition by the angel at the opening of the Museum. Jim Pinkoski said that Wyatt usually mentions the angel prohibition only to Seventh-day Adventist audiences. Colin responded that angels are all the rage today in Christian circles. If the angel gave him the prohibition then the permission of the Israeli authorities is irrelevant. Many have accepted this alibi, but now it is time to look more closely at it. Joseph Zias, Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology at the Israel Antiquities Authority placed a most revealing statement on the Internet on 8 August, 1996. It is revealing in four ways: 1. It indicates that Zias, an Israeli, has no respect for either the Old or New Testaments. 2. It calls into serious question Ron Wyatt’s claim that he has received any prohibition concerning the blood from the Israeli authorities. 3. It demonstrates that the claim that Ron Wyatt and his work are respected by the Israeli authorities is incorrect. 4. It proves, if such proof is required, that contrary to reports, (Mary Nell Wyatt, op.cit., p. 13) Ron has been less than forthcoming with the provision of requested evidence. We quote Joseph Zias’ internet letter in full so that, in fairness to the reader and Ron Wyatt, the objectionable matters in this letter can be evaluated

86

An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition together with his serious revelations: Shalom, if you have stirred up a wasp’s nest you must be doing something good. I can be quoted on the following: A. Ron Wyatt has never received a license from the IAA [Israel Antiquities Authority] to excavate here in Jerusalem. If he has then let him produce a license for his digs and surveys in Jerusalem, the Judean Desert, Mt. Sinai etc. B. Finding a coin at the so-called Mt Sinai. This shows the total ignorance of RW and his public who want to believe rather than to know! Coins were not around at the times of Moses, even an amateur archaeologist should know this simple fact!!! There are so many socalled Mt Sinais that even the Jews do not know where it is located. Personally I believe that it is simply a literary invention which is why it will never be found. C. As for the chariot wheel, a bluff, produce, on what was the dating made? Saw it in the video, it looks like a hoax, if it exists date it in C14 [Carbon 14 dating] lab. As an amateur arch[aeologist] which he claims to be, he should know of many. D. The Noah’s ark discovery has been discredited. If it is true, and I saw the tape, show lab reports on the C-14 [Carbon 14 dating] lab report. E. I personally read the junk about the blood of Christ which is totally absurd. I immediately sent a fax to RW as I knew he was bluffing asking for

a) copy and address of the lab report and b) sample for some independent testing which we would do. As of yet we have not received any reply. I sent a colleague who is a professor of NT to Tenn.[essee] to see what was up and the person in charge of the museum there said that we in the IAA are a bunch of non-believers and they weren’t interested in providing such info. to us. F. I saw his video which is an embarrassment to the world of arch[aeology]. The only people who can believe this junk is one who has never studied arch[aeology]. As for the impt. archaeologists he mentions in his reports, I have never heard of one of them after 25 yrs in the profession. As for the James Irwin, what are his credentials regarding the world of Biblical Arch. Did he have a BA in the profession, he was conned into believing this as have many others who wish to believe rather than to know.

87

88

HOLY RELICS

G. Has RW ever had any of his impt.[important] so-called discoveries published in a peer-reviewed journal? If so why not? H. Lastly if RW can supply us with the lab report on the so-called blood of Jesus along with a sample for independent testing which shows 24 chromosomes I will then be led along the road to Damascus. Otherwise he is bluffing. (Letter written by Joseph Zias to Mr. Searcy, dated 8 Aug. 1996 and placed on the Internet).

Zias’ introductory statement to Mr. Searcy is also included for completeness. It is discourteous, but does illustrate the Israeli authorities’ attitude to Ron Wyatt’s “discoveries”: Mr. Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. We are aware of his claims which border on the absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever nor have they ever been published in a professional journal. They fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc. It’s amazing that anyone would believe them. Furthermore, he has been thoroughly discredited by various organizations such as Creation Research in Calif. For the latest on his “discoveries” I suggest going into the WWW (use Vista) someone called Tentmaker decided to do an expose of his various claims. Here you will find the truth, which is more amazing than his (RW) fictions. Shalom (Ibid.)

We note that it is three years since Ron Wyatt was challenged by Zias to produce his excavating license. In a later chapter we will see that in 1998 the Israel Antiquities Authority once more stated in writing that Ron Wyatt had never been issued a license by them. Jonathan Gray apparently feared that negative replies would be received when evidence of Wyatt’s license was requested. In his 1997 book, Ark of the Covenant, p. 473, he wrote: So to the gentleman who asked would the Israeli authorities admit the Ark find if he wrote to them, my reply was, [that the Israeli authorities would say] “We have no record of any archaeological permit having been issued to Ron Wyatt, nor does anyone in this office know him. If Mr. Wyatt conducted any excavation in Jerusalem, it would have been done illegally.”

An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition

89

Since Jonathan Gray is not a prophet, it is quite likely that he already knew that the Israeli authorities had denied any knowledge of having issued an excavating permit to Ron Wyatt. Indeed Jonathan’s words could indicate that he was aware of Joseph Zias’ challenge on the Internet to Ron Wyatt to produce his license. Let it not be overlooked that Ron Wyatt uses the Internet to promote his “discoveries.” But Jonathan Gray’s postulated reply is nevertheless flawed. For a year prior to the publication of his book, Joseph Zias had already made it patently plain to the world, via the Internet, that he was far from ignorant of Ron Wyatt. At least one man in the Israel Antiquities Authority office did know Ron Wyatt and was prepared to say so. Gray’s postulate was a glaring example of pre-empting the Israeli reply in the hope of defusing any fall-out from such negative replies. Once more, every avenue of confirmation of claims was blocked. Or so it seemed. Jonathan Gray states of the reply denying knowledge of the issuing of license to Ron Wyatt—“we smile.” The authors do not! Playing these sorts of games is no laughing matter. If an individual has no evidence then let him not make the claim. We observe that Jonathan does not state that he has seen Ron Wyatt’s license. Constantly the Israeli “government” or “authorities” are blamed for the failure of the Wyatt Archaeological Research to produce crucial documentation. Meanwhile the [Israeli] government has placed a clamp on some information concerning the discovery. And we shall not go against the host government. Currently, therefore, we are unable to present all collected data on this subject. (Ark of the Covenant, p. 477)

But as we have seen, Zias, who held the post of Curator of the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) during the entire period of Ron Wyatt’s “discoveries,” is keeping no secrets. He is informing the world that the claim has been made that the blood of Christ has been discovered. He is calling for the laboratory report. This would be a dangerous request if the Authority regarded that report as a classified secret. Zias has openly requested Wyatt to produce the report. Since the 8th August, 1996 Ron Wyatt has had the official permission of the IAA to make public his report. No longer must he hide behind this “prohibition” for now we know he has in recent years, at least, permission to make known his results. It is not a private type of permission but a permission published for a number of years on the internet.

18

Where Is the Evidence?

is the evidence? It is little wonder that Wyatt has been forced to retreat to his fall-back position—“an angel prohibited me.” Yet another alibi has been offered to rescue him from the collapse of his first alibi. What could lead other fellow Christians to blind their eyes to the total lack of credibility of Wyatt’s claim? When his alibi of Israeli governmental prohibition proves to be false beyond any doubt he falls back on an alibi that has no earthly way of being tested for veracity. We recognize that Christians crave to have every detail of the Bible record confirmed by archaeological finds. We recognize that all such finds bring joy to Christians in the hope that these findings will convince skeptics and lead to their conversion. We share that burden too. But to offer “evidence” that is proving patently without credibility, will ultimately greatly damage the work of the gospel and harden the position of the skeptics. While we are saddened by Zias’ lack of religious belief, it cannot be denied that he has provided full authority for the public release of the report on Wyatt’s blood samples. Never again let us hear this untenable alibi. Further, when approached in Tennessee, Wyatt’s assistant [Jim Pinkoski] refused to share any information with Zias’ emissary, the New Testament professor, on the grounds that “the IAA are a bunch of unbelievers.” But Jonathan Gray states that he set out as an unbeliever to investigate the findings. He claims he was not denied “evidence” which convinced him. And is it not the purpose of the Wyatt seminars to do all to bring conviction to unbelievers? When Zias requested the New Testament professor and Biblical Archaeologist, Dr. Daniel Browning, to obtain a copy of the blood report, he was opening this “classified material” to the Professor’s eyes. When he requested a copy of the report over the internet, he made no effort to restrict the contents of the report to himself. The alibi of the Israeli prohibition must cease to be circulated. Make no mistake, if any Israeli government departments had issued such a prohibition, one of the first departments to have been alerted would have been the Israel Antiquities Authority.

S

O WHERE

90

Where Is the Evidence?

91

The Professor who visited Ron Wyatt’s Museum was Dr. Daniel Browning, Associate Professor of Biblical Archaeology at William Carey College, Hattiesburg Campus, located in the town of Biloxi, Mississippi. (Note that Dr. Browning does not live in Tennessee). He possesses his Ph.D. in the field of Archaeology from the University of Fort Worth, Texas (Telephone Conversation between Colin and Dr. Browning, Feb. 26, 1999). It is most likely that the Zias’ request for evidence was rejected because such evidence does not exist and that the myth of the Israeli prohibition is a convenient alibi to prevent the public from discovering that such evidence does not exist. Ron Wyatt had his fingers burned once when he made claims about the scientific findings of Galbraith’s Laboratories in Knoxville, Tennessee, which were not verified by the laboratory (see chapter entitled “Noah’s Ark”). It is likely that he has learned that lesson well and now recognizes that to name the laboratory will devalue rather than enhance his reputation for accurate reporting. Still the question is posed—where is the license? Ron Wyatt has had almost three years to produce it. Where is it? Has an angel told him not to produce it? Or was his $10,000 refused? (See chapter entitled “The Concerns of the Israeli Authorities”). In a number of locations in Australia in January and February 1999, Ron Wyatt stated that four men had signed his excavating permit. The men were named but no details were made available as to their Government posts. This statement was made at a private meeting at Amazing Truth ministry (January 30, 1999) and in a meeting at Brisbane (February 7, 1999). Video tapes are available which can document this fact. The same statement was made by Ron Wyatt to a small group of men including Dr. Alan Sonter in Toowoomba, Queensland in February, 1999. Russell viewed the video of the answers to questions at Amazing Truth. Investigation from Israel revealed that these men existed and did hold important archaeological positions in Israel. It was not difficult to obtain the additional information. Their names, in order of their mention were, Amos Kloner previously Head Government Archaeologist of Jerusalem. Now Professor at the Bar Ilan University situated near Tel Aviv. Joseph Gat Assistant Government Archaeologist in Jerusalem. He is now deceased. Daniel Bahat Previously Head Government Archaeologist in Jerusalem. Now Professor of Archaeology at Bar Ilan University. In his book Discovered Noah’s Ark, Ron Wyatt has a

92

HOLY RELICS

photograph of himself with this man found between pages 41 and 42. General Amin Drorie, Administrator of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Ron Wyatt stated that these men had asked him not to verify their names by producing the license he claimed they had signed. This assertion came after numbers of Australians aware of the letter written from the Israel Antiquities Authority, had requested Ron to produce the license and thus silence the Israeli authorities. Thus, it would seem, a new reason had been advanced to explain Ron Wyatt’s repeated refusals to produce his license. When Ron Wyatt was approached after one of his meetings in Brisbane, held February 7, 1999, he refused to repeat the names of the four claimed signatories, stating that he hoped no one had copied them down. It seems strange that if these men had requested anonymity, as Ron asserted, that he was prepared to breach that request in so public a manner. Since all possessed surnames unfamiliar to Australians, it was not possible to correctly discern the spelling, even if the listener could recall them. However, Russell, viewing a video tape of the private meeting Ron held at Amazing Truth Ministry was able to make guesses at the spelling, sufficient that they were recognized by authorities in Jerusalem. In every case, Russell’s guess of the spelling of the surname was incorrect—Clangar (Kloner), Gad (Gat), Baharch (Bahat), and Drawry (Drorie)—for Ron’s pronunciations of the names and the fact that they were non-British surnames made correct spelling difficult to discern. Russell undertook to telephone General Amin Drorie. There were two reasons for doing so. As an army general, he would be well aware of the security situation in Israel. Secondly, as the Director of the Israel Antiquities Department, he would be the individual to whom the government would issue any prohibitions upon the release of classified information. It was not easy to obtain a telephone interview with the general, but eventually Russell succeeded on February 25, 1999. General Drorie stated two matters emphatically. First, his office had not granted an excavating license to Ron Wyatt. Second, he had never received a single directive from the government prohibiting the release of any information Ron Wyatt had concerning his discoveries. Now we are well aware that Jonathan Gray and Ron Wyatt have already asserted that such responses would be likely in order to maintain the postulated cover-up. However, it was General Drorie’s answer to another question which was of great significance. Russell specifically asked the General whether there was any objection to Ron Wyatt producing the labo-

Where Is the Evidence?

93

ratory report setting out the data upon the chromosomal count. The General, with a couldn’t-care-less tone said with a scornful laugh, “Let him go ahead and openly show the report.” Such would have been a most dangerous statement from an army general if the Israeli nation would be imperiled by its revelation. General Drorie is no minor military figure. Ten years ago he was on the short list of three for the post of Israeli commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. While he did not receive the appointment, we can be assured that he is well aware of military intelligence concerns. Mary Nell Wyatt stated that Ron Wyatt received his second excavation license from the Israel Department of Antiquities in 1988 (Ron Wyatt Presentation of Discoveries Video). This date precludes any possibility of General Drorey having signed Ron Wyatt’s license as he claimed. Until 1989 Abi Eytan was the Director of the Israel Antiquities Department. (Information provided by Joseph Zias in telephone conversation to Russell February 24, 1999) Thus Ron Wyatt is free to produce the report. But despite his public claims to have received a license to dig in Jerusalem from the Israel Antiquities Department on two occasions (1988), these claims have been proven false. Now Wyatt has stated that that permission did not come from the Israel Antiquities Authority but from the Garden Tomb Association. For this Wyatt has documentation. In an undated, unsigned letter concerning Ron Wyatt on the stationary of The Garden Tomb Association, it is plainly stated that Ron Wyatt “was allowed to dig within this privately owned garden.” The letter also clearly states that Mr. Wyatt “has never received a license to excavate in Jerusalem [from the Israel Antiquities Authority].” It must be noted that the handwritten comments on the letter delivered to Colin by Aaron Sen, of England states, “Ron did have a permit and did dig in the garden tomb” (copy of letter with handwritten comments was given to Colin at meetings held in London, March 7, 1999). It will be noted that the writer wrote that Ron had a permit (emphasis Aaron’s) to dig at the Garden Tomb (Jerusalem) Association. But the letter does not indicate any written form of authorization. Rather it states that Ron “was allowed to dig” indicating verbal permission. This may seem inconsequential but assumes more significance when placed with Dr. Bahat’s statement that “he had advised the Warden [of the Garden Tomb Association] to let Ron Wyatt clean up the rubbish on the site.” In the interest of full disclosure we now present the complete text of the Garden Tomb Association letter concerning Ron Wyatt unaltered.

94

HOLY RELICS

Ron Wyatt The Council of the Garden Tomb Association (London) totally refute the claim of Mr. Wyatt to have discovered the original Ark of the Covenant or any other biblical artifacts within the boundaries of the area known as the Garden Tomb Jerusalem. Though Mr. Wyatt was allowed to dig within this privately owned garden on a number of occasions (the last occasion being the summer of 1991) staff members of the Association observed his progress and entered his excavated shaft. As far as we are aware nothing was ever discovered to support his claims nor have we seen any evidence of biblical artifacts or temple treasures. The Israeli Antiquities Authority recently stated that Mr. Wyatt lacks any archaeological qualification and has never received a license to excavate in Jerusalem. Quote “We are aware of his (Mr. Wyatt’s) claims which border on the absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever nor have they been published in a professional journal”

The authenticity of this statement Russell confirmed in a personal telephone conversation with the Chaplain of the Garden Tomb Association on May 11, 1999. It will be noted that the staff members entered his excavated shaft and found what Attorney Herold Follett found—nothing. This is further confirmation that Ron Wyatt’s discovery of the Ark of the Covenant is a myth. Joseph Zias, the curator of Anthropology/Archaeology of the Israel Antiquities Authority was never awarded an excavating license, despite his position, because he held no academic degrees in archaeology. His master of arts degree was in the discipline of anthropology (Russell’s personal telephone conversation with Joseph Zias, 24 Feb. 1999). Pastor David Down, the well-known Australian Seventh-day Adventist archaeologist, has never been granted a license for he possesses no academic degree in archaeology. All Pastor Down’s archaeological digs have been undertaken as an assistant to licensed archaeologists. (Telephone conversation between Pastor Austin Cooke and Pastor David Down, 1 March, 1999). Ron Wyatt in his meeting on January 30, 1999 at Amazing Truth Ministry plainly stated that he had been awarded a license which was signed by the four men cited above. This claim has proven to be false. On March 9, 1999 Russell spoke to Dr. Daniel Bahat by telephone. At the Amazing Truth meeting cited above Ron Wyatt predicted, as had Jonathan Gray in his book Ark of the Covenant p. 473, that the Israel Antiquities Authority staff would deny any knowledge of him. As we have

Where Is the Evidence?

95

seen this was not so. Joseph Zias readily recalled his two meetings with Ron Wyatt. Dr. Bahat also possessed no conspiracy of ignorance or silence. He spontaneously recalled between “five and ten” meetings with Ron Wyatt. There is thus no conspiracy of silence, none at all. Dr. Bahat met Ron Wyatt over a period stretching from the mid-80s to around 1990. He graciously described Ron as a “very nice and very gentle man.” But he confirmed that although Ron Wyatt had taken him to the site of his supposed discovery of the Ark of the Covenant, absolutely nothing was shown him. Dr. Bahat spontaneously stated that the Warden of the Garden Tomb Association possessed control over activities at that site and not the Israel Antiquities Authority. However, he had advised the Warden to let Ron Wyatt clean up the rubbish on the site. It was never Dr. Bahat’s duty to sign excavating licenses. He has never done so. That was the duty of the Director of the Israel Antiquities Authority, not of Dr. Bahat as Chief Archaeologist in Jerusalem. Dr. Bahat, without hesitation, granted Russell full permission to quote his statements in this book. Such a permission gives weight to his following statement: We are unconcerned if Ron Wyatt publishes his evidence concerning Christ’s blood or the Ark of the Covenant. He is perfectly free to do so.

Russell also telephoned Professor Amos Kloner on March 26, 1999. Professor Kloner did not possess a clear recollection of Ron Wyatt, although he did state that it was quite possible that they had met years previously. But regarding one matter he was quite emphatic—he had never held any position which entitled him to sign Israel Antiquities Department licenses or any other excavating licenses. Therefore he was never a signatory to an excavating license for Ron Wyatt. Thus, of the archaeologists still living, archaeologists whom Ron Wyatt asserted signed his excavation license, none confirmed his claim. Two of the three denied they had ever signed the licenses or permits of any archaeologists, for their duties did not include such a function. Only General Amin Drorie has held that right, and still does, but he was not appointed to the Israel Antiquities Authority until one year after Mary Nell claims Ron received his license. Ron Wyatt could clear the entire question up very simply: his recourse is to display his signed license. One reason why the Jewish authorities are not concerned by Ron Wyatt’s efforts in respect of the Ark of the Covenant is the conviction of religious

96

HOLY RELICS

Jews that the Arabs must be expelled from the Temple Mount before the Ark of the Covenant will be rediscovered and not after. Dr. Gershon Salomon, founder of the Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful, has stated that his conviction is that, When the Arab presence is removed, and access to the Temple Mount obtained, the ark will be brought out and the Third Temple begun. (Randall Price, In Search of Temple Treasures p. 278)

Ron Wyatt’s work is no threat to the time sequence of the religious Jews. This the Goverment knows.

19

The Concerns of the Israeli Authorities

February 9 and 10, 1999, Russell spoke by telephone with Joseph Zias. He was appointed Curator of Anthropology and Archaeology at the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in January 1972, and retired from this post in August 1997. Zias was born in the United States. He studied Archaeology in both the University in Jerusalem and the Smithsonian Institute in the United States. Yet he holds no formal degree in this discipline; his Master’s degree is in Anthropology. His period of tenure in the Office of Curator of the Israel Antiquities Authority covered the entire period of Ron Wyatt’s remarkable “discoveries.” Furthermore, Joseph Zias is acquainted with Ron Wyatt, having met with him on two occasions. He confirmed the correctness of Ron Wyatt’s report which stated that he had taken artifacts to the IAA. Zias stated that none of the artifacts were of significance and all were discarded. Zias denied that the Israeli Government had ever ordered him to prohibit Ron from producing the report on the chromosome abnormalities in the blood. He sensibly indicated that he would not have dared to openly challenge Ron Wyatt to produce the report on the internet, had he received such instructions from the Government. “Never once,” he emphasized, “have we ever placed a prohibition on Ron Wyatt revealing any detail about his ‘discoveries.’” This accounts for the freedom displayed by Ron to make his claims openly in no little detail on the public platforms of North America, the South Pacific, Europe and Asia. Zias is an avowed atheist. In some minds, this will discount his testimonies. But the fact that Zias placed his challenge to Ron over the Internet to produce his excavating license, and Ron has been unable to do so, adds veracity to Zias’ published statement that Wyatt has never been issued a license. All Ron has to do is to produce his claimed license in order to put Zias’ Internet statement to rest. But, ominously, he has not done so. Further, Zias’ claims that the authorities have never prohibited Wyatt from disclosing his “archaeological finds” has the ring of truth for, with abandon, Zias has publicly challenged Ron over the internet to reveal the

O

N

97

98

HOLY RELICS

blood report data. Manifestly Zias would not have dared to take such a bold step had the Israeli authorities placed a prohibition on such a revelation. No laboratory in Jerusalem, of course, has reported covertly or openly the results of such a report. We have mentioned that we were puzzled how it was that Ron had “excavated” around the Garden Tomb when he possessed no license. Zias confirmed that Ron had taken people to the vicinity of the Garden Tomb and they had spent time cleaning out rubble from a nearby cistern. (See Chapter entitled “Disappointed Searchers”). But this was in no wise an archaeological dig of the least significance. It is no little wonder then that these disappointed searchers discovered nothing at all related to Wyatt’s Ark of the Covenant claims. Zias explained that numerous Christian religious sites in Israel are controlled by various religious orders. Thus the Greek Orthodox Church has control of the claimed site of the manger where Christ was born and has built the Church of the Nativity over it. Similarly several churches possess control over their claimed site of Christ’s burial and have constructed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre over it. Another interesting site in Jerusalem which is not under the control of the Israel Antiquities Authority is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It is claimed to be built over the site of the crucifixion and Christ’s grave. It is in the control of a number of churches, the three most important being the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox Churches. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church maintains a monastery on the top of the church. This large church was captured from the Crusaders in 1187 by the fierce Moslem warrior, Saladin. Since that date, for over eight centuries, the key to the door of that church has been in the hands of a single dynastic Moslem family. Since the huge rambling church complex has only one entrance, it is a terrible fire hazard. In 1999 the Israeli Tourist Authority demanded that a second door be added to the church, but the various Christian sects controlling the church are at odds as to where the door should be sited and who should hold the key. It is unlikely that the Israeli Tourist Authority’s wish will be met in the near future. Of interest is the fact that the Moslems who hold the key to the only door at present have never failed to open it daily for Christian worshipers. (London Daily Telegraph, June 22, 1999). In like manner the Garden Tomb, which was found by an Englishman, is under the control of an English organization known as the Garden Tomb Association. It is they who permitted Wyatt to clean out the cisterns since

The Concerns of the Israeli Authorities

99

they saw no real archaeological significance in this work. Zias pointed Russell to two very serious accusations leveled at Ron Wyatt in a book written by a Christian Pastor, Randall Price. If Price is lying, he has opened himself up for a defamation suit. The fact that he has dared to openly publish such serious accusations vests them with more than ordinary significance. We quote from Randall Price’s book: In one instance Flemming [Dr. James Flemming, a Christian pastor who holds a Ph.D. degree in archaeology and is a consistent excavator in Israel and well known to, and respected by, Joseph Zias] saw Wyatt drop a hammer into a crack in the mountain [it was a water cistern in the mount]. Later Wyatt offered as proof that he had discovered the Ark [of the Covenant], a metal detector reading that indicated metal within the rock.... Rev. John Woods noted I saw him [Ron Wyatt] explaining to a group that a piece of metal embedded in the face of the Garden Tomb was part of the seal Pilate had placed upon the tomb. In fact it was a piece of shrapnel from the [Arab-Israeli] war in 1967. (Randall Price, In Search of Temple Treasure, p.156, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, 1994).

These are most serious charges of fraud. We notice that Pastor Randall Price published them in the United States, the most litigious nation on earth. To do so he must be confident of his facts and so must his Publisher, Harvest House of Oregon. Joseph Zias confirmed that the metal at the side of the Garden Tomb, claimed by Wyatt to be the broken metal rod used to fix a restraining rod across the stone covering the claimed entrance to Christ’s grave, is merely a piece of shrapnel from the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Joseph Zias pointed out that the type of sulfur balls present in the site claimed by Ron Wyatt as Gomorrah, is found in desert areas such as Namibia (formerly South West Africa) and the western United States. We shall see that they are found also in the Little Desert of the North Island of New Zealand (see chapter entitled “Sodom & Gomorrah). The claim of uniqueness, accepted by many on Ron’s word alone, is unquestionably untrue. Unaware of Ron Wyatt’s claim to have spoken face to face with Christ, as reported by some of his supporters at the Ballarat meetings in Australia in September 1998, Zias reported that while in Israel Ron had told some that “I have just met Jesus.” Zias stated that he spoke of Jesus climbing up and down a ladder between heaven and earth (shades of Jacob’s dream). Zias also stated that the Christian pastor, Dr. James Flemming, reported to him that Ron had offered Dr. Flemming $10,000 if he would use his influence to arrange for him to obtain an excavation license from the IAA. Dr. Flemming, rightly, refused such a request.

100

HOLY RELICS

Mr. Zias spontaneously assured Russell that he stood behind his statements and was perfectly content for Russell to publish his words. He also offered to visit Australia, if invited, and speak on the subject and answer questions. To write off these serious allegations, would be to demonstrate a closed mind. Effortlessly we can all construct alibis at will, but how many more reputations must be questioned—of respected Christians and others who, while not possessing the privileges of the truths we hold, nevertheless are sincere in their search for evidence. How many researchers must we demean, in order to uphold the claims of a man who has provided not one shred of evidence concerning his numerous Ark of the Covenant claims? Surely it is time to place our questions in the correct direction and draw some appropriate conclusions.

20 S

Diligent Efforts to Confirm RonWyatt’s Claims

OME, not antagonistic to Bible archaeology, have attempted to verify

many of Ron Wyatt’s claims. Some have approached many in a position to understand the situation. Men can, if they wish, proclaim that everyone approached has a bias and is of less than honest character. If this be so, Ron Wyatt has a large part of the scientific, academic and legislative world against him. His situation would be quite unique. One Christian, Pastor Randall Price, in a letter to Mr. Jim Pinkoski, Curator of the Wyatt Archaeological Research Museum, dated February 27, 1995 showed how diligently he had sought to confirm Ron Wyatt’s claims. He stated, I did seek to verify Mr. Wyatt’s claims by interviews in Israel with officials such as Peter Wells, General Secretary of the Garden Tomb (Jerusalem) Association, Dr. Daniel Bahat former Official Archaeologist of Jerusalem and now with the Ministry of Religious Affairs (in charge of the Western Wall Tunnel), Dr. James Fleming, then with the Jerusalem Biblical Research organization. I further researched some of Mr. Wyatt’s other claims through field archaeologist in Israel and instructor at The American Institute of Holyland Studies in Jerusalem Gordon Franz (who was in process of writing a critique of Mr. Wyatt’s claims), geologist Dr. Donald Patton, who has made repeated exploration of the Ararat plateau and the Doomsday mountain site, Dr. Carl Baugh, curator of the CreationEvidences Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, and several other sources (Christian organizational leaders) who had interviewed Mr. Wyatt. I also was sent Bill Crouse’s published critique and correspondence from various individuals who had accompanied Mr. Wyatt at the Gordon’s Calvary site and who volunteered their statements for quotation. As a tour guide in Israel I am also well-acquainted with several of the sites for which Mr. Wyatt makes claims (such as the site below Masada claimed to be “Sodom & Gomorrah,” the “Red Sea Crossing” site, and the “real Mt Sinai”). May I respectfully say that

101

102

HOLY RELICS

not one—not one—of any of these sources offered any support for Mr. Wyatt’s claims—and most evaluations seriously questioned Mr. Wyatt’s integrity.

We had formed our own serious doubts about Ron Wyatt’s claims long before we had the least idea that men of international repute had failed to find any merit in his public presentations. Like many other Australians, we learned of these matters from material distributed by Jonathan Gray. While at first the claims almost appeared harmless, the lack of evidence convinced us that acceptance would be unwarranted, even perhaps dangerous. The claims concerning the blood on the Mercy Seat, and the chariot wheels, were more than enough to arouse us to caution. It was only after 1995, as we examined the matter more closely, that we began to discover that we were far from alone in our concerns. We have contacted various people of good repute in their fields, men known for their integrity and the accuracy of their knowledge in certain areas of professional endeavor. As we have done this, our concerns have grown rather than abated. Too many evidences weigh against many of the claims. Some conclude that Ron Wyatt is an imposter. If his spiritual profession were not so high, it is possible that others, too, would not hold back from such a conclusion. Is he a zealot who believes his own unsubstantiated claims? Is this possible? God alone knows. We have never known a man who has claimed to have made substantial “discoveries” in the field of Biblical archaeology who has failed to convince both Christian and secular minds with such a degree of concordance. Make no mistake, it cannot be doubted that many Christian searchers for Biblical confirmation would rejoice if they could, with conviction, and true evidence, acknowledge Ron Wyatt’s claims as verified. But most are men of integrity who, while desiring archaeological confirmation, still believe that a high standard of proof must be upheld. In the case of the Ark of the Covenant, absolutely no evidence has been forthcoming after years of public claims in books, videos and addresses from public platforms. It is time for Ron Wyatt to either produce the evidence so many doubt and for which we will see, in the chapter entitled “An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition,” that there is no Israeli prohibition, or else to cease presenting these claims which distract God’s people from the realities of their preparation for Christ’s return. For surely he well knows that, for one reason or another, he is unprepared to divulge the evidence to substantiate his startling claims. As Randall Price wrote, in moderate words:

Diligent Efforts to Confirm Ron Wyatt’s Claims

103

As to Mr. Wyatt’s claim concerning the Ark [of the Covenant], let me simply state the fact that no evidence to support his claim, other than his own testimony, has been made available. I have access to governmental sources in Israel who deny there is any “cover-up,” and to archaeological sources who evaluated Mr. Wyatt’s excavations from the beginning and say there was nothing resembling the “room” Mr. Wyatt states contains the Ark and other Temple treasures. Perhaps Mr. Wyatt does have evidence to support his claim, but until it is more than “forthcoming,” no one should be expected to accept his claim as valid. Incidentally, this is the same statement I make concerning my own view of the site of the “room” underneath the Temple Mount, although I believe the “evidence” for this claim is stronger than its contenders. It is for this reason that I have declined offers from radio stations to debate Mr. Wyatt on this matter, since lack of evidence (on both sides) leaves nothing substantive to debate (Ibid.).

It would be well for Ron Wyatt to exercise similar restraint concerning blood on the Mercy Seat, blood containing a mere 24 chromosomes, or of meeting angels or speaking to Christ. We do admire Randall Price’s recognition that until he confirms his hunch, he will preserve a low public profile on the matter. We respect such a stance. Randall Price’s Christian concern shines through in his desire for the salvation of Christ’s heritage: My concern for you [Jim Pinkoski] is that in your wholesale support of Mr. Wyatt you have put yourself in the position of spokesman for matters which cannot be concluded based on fact—and fact is the support for faith (cf. The Resurrection of Christ). I have a great concern for this generation. First, that it is not prepared to meet Christ at His coming, and second, that it has departed from the simple faith in Christ and godliness to follow appealing, but insupportable theories of men. I am sure that to some degree you share this concern. The theological truths concerning Christ’s sacrificial atonement—which are essential to stress—would be enhanced and demonstrated to an unbelieving world if Mr. Wyatt’s claim concerning the Ark under the escarpment of Gordon’s Calvary is true. However, without evidence to support this claim, the theological truths themselves are put into a context of questionable things, and are in a position to be accepted or rejected with the merits of the claim. Of such linkage we must be careful, lest our attempt to demonstrate the truth actually be detrimental to it (Ibid.).

104

HOLY RELICS

We concur with Randall Price’s expressed concern. He is not a Seventh-day Adventist. We have never met him, nor spoken to him, neither have we corresponded with him in any way, but he has earned our respect. We wish he knew the full truth of the Seventh-day Adventist faith. We pray that Ron Wyatt’s unsubstantiated claims are not viewed by sincere Christians of other faiths as evidence that Seventh-day Adventism is based upon similar flimsy evidence. It is not! It stands upon the Word of God. It stands up before every scrutiny!

21

The Wyatt Ark of the Covenant

im Pinkoski, former Curator of the Wyatt Archaeological Research Museum in Tennessee, drew a depiction of the Ark of the Covenant as described to him by Ron Wyatt. This depiction has been published in a number of articles issuing from Wyatt Archaeological Research. Mary Nell Wyatt’s book, Ark of the Covenant, features the Pinkoski drawing on its cover and also on page 28. It is likewise included on page 2 of a 1994 Wyatt Archaeological Research paper entitled, The Discovery of the Ark of the Covenant. Since Scripture details several features of the Ark of the Covenant it is a valuable exercise to compare the Wyatt Ark with the Biblical Ark. Let us examine first the dimensions of the Ark.

J

And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. (Exodus 25:10)

It would appear that Ron Wyatt in his description is using what he claims to be the Royal Egyptian cubit rather than the generally accepted cubit of 17.5 inches (44.5 cms) of the Jews. The Jewish cubit would lead us to expect the length of the Ark to be 3 feet 7.5 inches (109.3 centimeters) and its height 2 feet 2.25 inches (65.6 cms). Ron Wyatt states that the length of the Ark is 4 feet 3.5 inches (128.75 cms) long and 2 feet 7 inches (77.5 cms) in height. In using the Royal Egyptian cubit, Ron Wyatt is no doubt aligning the standard of measurement to concur with that which he uses for Noah’s Ark, since the boat-like formation does not conform in length to the Jewish cubit. Let us spend a few moments on the subject of the length of the cubit, which represented the length from the elbow to the end of a man’s middle finger—an inexact measurement to say the least. But sound evidence has been found to justify the conclusion that the Jews had standardized the cubit to 17.5 inches (44.5 cms). The Siloam Inscription states that King Hezekiah’s water tunnel was 1200 cubits. This has been measured and found that the cubit involved was in fact 17.49 inches (44.4 cms). Numer-

105

106

HOLY RELICS

ous ancient building sites have been measured and have been found to be whole number multiples of 17.5 inches. This is strong confirmatory evidence that the Israelite cubit equaled approximately 17.5 inches. According to Jonathan Gray (Ark Conspiracy, p. 18 footnote), the Royal Egyptian cubit equaled 20.6 inches. He bases this claim on the word of Piozzi-Smith, a British Astronomer Royal of the nineteenth century. What is certain is that two differing Egyptian cubit measuring sticks have been found. One closely resembled the Israelite measurement, being 17.7 inches (45 cms) long. The other was close to the measurement Ron Wyatt describes as the Royal Egyptian cubit. Ron Wyatt measures this as 20.6 inches. The second cubit rod found was 20.67 inches (52.5 cms). (Aid to Bible Understanding: Subject—Cubit, Watch Tower Tract Society, New York, 1971) It is likely that the second rod was a cubit plus a hand’s breadth. Such a measurement is recorded in Scripture. And behold a wall on the outside of the house round about, and in the man’s hand a measuring reed of six cubits long by the cubit and an hand breath: so he measured the breadth of the building, one reed; and the height, one reed. (Ezekiel 40:5)

That measurement was said to be 20.4 inches (51.8 cms). Interestingly, when one multiplies the Egyptian cubit of 17.7 inches by the ratio of 17.5 to 20.4, the ratio of the Israelite cubit to the Israelite measurement of a cubit plus a hand’s breath, the result is 20.633 inches, very close to the socalled Royal Egyptian cubit. It is possible that one selects the cubit length which best suits his theory. However we note that the Bible description does not refer to a cubit plus a hand’s breath. Since antediluvians were vastly larger than individuals in Moses’ day it is manifest that the length of their forearms and hands would have greatly exceeded that of the Jews. Of course, we know nothing of the measurements the antediluvians used, but it does appear amazing that they would confirm to precisely 300 cubits, be they either Israelite cubits or Royal Egyptian cubits. By the way, the second Egyptian measuring stick would indicate a length of Noah’s Ark of 517 feet, two feet longer than Ron Wyatt’s measurement of 515 feet, probably an inconsequential difference. It should not be forgotten that the formation at the Durupinar site (the site in Turkey where Ron Wyatt claims he has found Noah’s Ark) was close to fifty percent wider than that described in Genesis for Noah’s Ark.

The Wyatt Ark of the Covenant

107

Ron Wyatt’s claim that this was due to the boat splitting apart can only be a supposition. We believe that it is more likely that the furniture of the Sanctuary would have been measured in terms of the Israelite cubit, although we cannot verify this belief and therefore cannot validly disprove Ron’s measurements. Scripture provides considerable detail concerning the staves used to carry the Ark. And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold. And thou shalt put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them. The staves shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it. (Exodus 25:12–15)

This description is of some interest to us. Sometimes Wyatt’s ark is represented with the staves in place. The cover of Mary Nell’s book, Ark of the Covenant, instances this fact. However on page 28 the staves are missing. It is most unlikely that those who secreted the Ark would disregard the divine prohibition to remove the staves from the Ark (Exodus 25:15). Explicit instructions were given for the construction of the Mercy Seat. And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the Mercy Seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. (Exodus 25:17–19) And he made the mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half was the length thereof, and one cubit and a half the breadth thereof. And he made two cherubims of gold, beaten out of one piece made he them, on the two ends of the mercy seat; one cherub on the end on this side, and another cherub on the other end on that side: out of the Mercy Seat made he the cherubims on the two ends thereof. (Exodus 37:6–8)

Now it will be noted that the cherubims were placed on the ends of the Mercy Seat. The Pinkoski illustrations consistently place the cherubims not on the Mercy Seat but at either side of the Mercy Seat. This is a major digression from the Bible account. Indeed, in Mary Nell Wyatt’s Ark of the Covenant, p. 28, the Mercy Seat is drawn separate from the rest of the ark.

108

HOLY RELICS

Here plainly are seen the cherubims standing at the ends of the ark, their lower bodies and legs extending down to the bottom of the ark. This contradicts Scripture. And thou shalt put the Mercy Seat above upon the ark. (Exodus 25:21, first part)

Since the cherubims were on the Mercy Seat they, too, would have been above the ark, not standing by its side. Precise instructions were provided for the positioning of the cherubims’ wings. And the Cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings. (Exodus 25:20, first part) And the cherubims spread out their wings on high, and covered with their wings over the mercy seat, with their faces one to another. (Exodus 37:9, first part) For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof. (1 Kings 8:7) And for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold for the pattern of the chariot of the cherubims, that spread out their wings, and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. (1 Chronicles 28:18) And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat. (Hebrews 9:5, first part)

We notice that the wings were stretched forth on high. The cherubims on Wyatt’s ark each possess one wing which most certainly is not stretched forth on high. In fact, these wings are by the cherubims’ side pointing downwards. God was too particular in His instructions to overlook this detail. The drawing, whatever it is, is most certainly not of the Ark of the Covenant displaced from Solomon’s Temple. Of course Ron Wyatt was almost impelled to design the ark in this manner in order to fit his claim that Christ’s blood fell on the Mercy Seat. It will be observed that the Mercy Seat of the Biblical Ark of the Covenant was covered by the angels’ wings. Even if this cave existed, and even if a crack stretched from the cross-hole of Christ to the cave, and even if the blood did traverse that crack, it would not have landed upon the Mercy Seat, but upon the wings of the angels, for they covered the Mercy Seat and even beyond, for they also covered the staves which extended from the sides of the Ark (1 Kings 8:7). The Bible reveals yet another important detail of the Ark of the Covenant.

The Wyatt Ark of the Covenant

109

. . . and their faces shall look one to another; toward the Mercy Seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. (Exodus 25:20) . . . with their faces one to another; even to the mercy seatward were the faces of the cherubims. (Exodus 37:9)

On Wyatt’s ark the cherubims appear to be looking neither at one another nor at the Mercy Seat. We concede that this may be a moot point since the illustration may not represent the matter precisely. It is evident that that which Ron Wyatt claimed to see—the Ark of the Covenant—was significantly different from the description of it in the Bible. In summary it differed in that 1. Wyatt’s ark places the cherubims to the sides of the ark and the Mercy Seat while the Bible places the cherubims on the Mercy Seat. 2. Wyatt’s cherubims rightly possessed two wings, but only one wing each stretched forth to cover a small portion of the Mercy Seat. By contrast both wings of the Biblical cherubims stretch forth on high to cover the entire Mercy Seat plus the staves. Because of these significant discrepancies we are compelled to reject Ron Wyatt’s ark as being that which once graced both the tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon. If Ron Wyatt has seen an ark as he has described, then it was a bogus imitation of the genuine. In view of these facts it would be a worthless pursuit to attempt to put forward yet further alibis to provide a platform for Ron Wyatt’s faulty claim. Remember no one, no one, has ever viewed the Wyatt Ark of the Covenant. Why would any sincere individual desire to conjure up further implausible theories to sustain an “archaeological find” which has never been verified?

22

Handling the Tables of Stone

Ron Wyatt actually held the sacred Decalogue, written upon stone by the hand of God? The brief answer to this question is— Most unlikely! God had provided strict instructions concerning the Ark of the Covenant. It was not to be looked upon, neither was it to be touched. Ron Wyatt states that he has done both, even to the point of using a colonoscope to peer through the crack he claims was found in the stone case. But let us listen to God’s words.

H

AS

And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, take the sum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, after their families, by the house of their fathers, from thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation. This shall be the service of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation, about the most holy things: and when the camp setteth forward, Aaron shall come, and his sons, and they shall take down the covering vail, and cover the ark of testimony with it: and shall put thereon the covering of badgers’ skins, and shall spread over it a cloth wholly of blue, and shall put in the staves thereof (Numbers 4:1–6).

We note that only descendants of Kohath, the son of Levi and grandfather of Moses and Aaron, were permitted to come near the Ark of the Covenant even when it required transportation. They alone could convey the Ark, bearing it upon their shoulders by the use of staves which passed through rings attached to the Ark. But unto the sons of Kohath he gave none: because the service of the sanctuary belonging unto them was that they should bear upon their shoulders (Numbers 7:9).

These Kohathite priests were forbidden, we see above, to look upon the Ark and were required to cover it before they carried it from location to location.

110

Handling the Tables of Stone

111

Scripture plainly records the dire consequences of looking upon the Ark when it was returned by the Philistines. And the kine took the straight way to the way of Beth-shemesh, and went along the highway, lowing as they went, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left; and the lords of the Philistines went after them unto the border of Beth-shemesh. And they of Beth-shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley: and they lifted up their eyes, and saw the ark, and rejoiced to see it. And the cart came into the field of Joshua, a Beth-shemite, and stood there, where there was a great stone: and they clave the wood of the cart, and offered the kine a burnt offering unto the LORD. And the Levites took down the ark of the Lord, and the coffer that was with it, wherein the jewels of gold were, and put them on the great stone: and the men of Beth-shemesh offered burnt offerings and sacrificed sacrifices the same day unto the LORD (1 Samuel 6:12–15).

Appropriately the Levites dealt with the return of the Ark. But the curiosity of the people of Beth-shemesh was so intense that contrary to the Word of God they dared to look into the Ark. The penalty was death for 50,070 men. And he smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before this holy LORD God? and to whom shall he go up from us? (1 Samuel 6:19,20)

The Spirit of Prophecy has commented upon this incident and added some fascinating insights. The men of Beth-shemesh quickly spread the tidings that the ark was in their possession, and the people from the surrounding country flocked to welcome its return. The ark had been placed upon the stone that first served for an altar, and before it additional sacrifices were offered unto the Lord. Had the worshipers repented of their sins, God’s blessing would have attended them. But they were not faithfully obeying His law; and while they rejoiced at the return of the ark as a harbinger of good, they had no true sense of its sacredness. Instead of preparing a suitable place for its reception, they permitted it to remain in the harvest field. As they continued to gaze upon the sacred chest and to talk of the wonderful manner in which it had been restored, they began to conjecture wherein lay its peculiar power. At last, overcome by curiosity, they removed the coverings and ventured to open it.

112

HOLY RELICS

All Israel had been taught to regard the ark with awe and reverence. When required to remove it from place to place the Levites were not so much as to look upon it. Only once a year was the high priest permitted to behold the ark of God. Even the heathen Philistines had not dared to remove its coverings. Angels of heaven, unseen, ever attended it in all its journeyings. The irreverent daring of the people of Beth-shemesh was speedily punished. Many were smitten with sudden death (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 589).

Here we see that the reason the men of Beth-shemesh rashly inspected the inside of the ark was not because their lives were noble and righteous, but because they harbored sin in their hearts. Even the heathen Philistines possessed more respect for the Ark than did these Israelites. The Philistines returned the Ark still covered as they had captured it. But the profane men of Beth-shemesh removed the coverings and opened the Ark and examined its contents. God’s displeasure may be measured by the penalty imposed. God prohibited even the Kohathite priests from touching the Ark. And when Aaron and his sons have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation. ... But thus do unto them, that they may live, and not die, when they approach unto the most holy things: Aaron and his sons shall go in, and appoint them every one to his service and to his burden: but they shall not go in to see when the holy things are covered, lest they die (Numbers 4:15,19,20).

Once again we have an instance for examination in which one man, Uzzah, breached the prohibition upon humans touching the Ark. And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God (2 Samuel 6:6,7).

The words of the Spirit of Prophecy commenting upon this incident are instructive. The fate of Uzzah was a divine judgment upon the violation of a most explicit command. Through Moses the Lord had given special instruction concerning the transportation of the ark. None but the

Handling the Tables of Stone

113

priests, the descendants of Aaron, were to touch it, or even to look upon it uncovered. The divine direction was, “The sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die.” Numbers 4:15. The priests were to cover the ark, and then the Kohathites must lift it by the staves, which were placed in rings upon each side of the ark and were never removed. To the Gershonites and Merarites, who had in charge the curtains and boards and pillars of the tabernacle, Moses gave carts and oxen for the transportation of that which was committed to them. “But unto the sons of Kohath he gave none: because the service of the sanctuary belonging unto them was that they should bear upon their shoulders.” Numbers 7:9. Thus in the bringing of the ark from Kirjath-jearim there had been a direct and inexcusable disregard of the Lord’s directions.

David and his people had assembled to perform a sacred work, and they had engaged in it with glad and willing hearts; but the Lord could not accept the service, because it was not performed in accordance with His directions. The Philistines, who had not a knowledge of God’s law, had placed the ark upon a cart when they returned it to Israel, and the Lord accepted the effort which they made. But the Israelites had in their hands a plain statement of the will of God in all these matters, and their neglect of these instructions was dishonoring to God. Upon Uzzah rested the greater guilt of presumption. Transgression of God’s law had lessened his sense of its sacredness, and with unconfessed sins upon him he had, in face of the divine prohibition, presumed to touch the symbol of God’s presence. God can accept no partial obedience, no lax way of treating His commandments. By the judgment upon Uzzah He designed to impress upon all Israel the importance of giving strict heed to His requirements. Thus the death of that one man, by leading the people to repentance, might prevent the necessity of inflicting judgments upon thousands (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 705,706). Here, yet again, we are informed that it was the presence of unconfessed and unforsaken sins which led to Uzzah’s presumption to disregard a divine imperative. Nowhere in Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy do we discover a reversal of these divine prohibitions. Ron Wyatt has claimed to have seen the Ark of the Covenant. He has claimed to have viewed and, going beyond the actions of Uzzah and the men of Beth-shemesh, he has stated that he has actually handled the sacred law of God. Ron asserts that these stone tables were passed to him by an angel. But the question arises, Would an angel of God encourage a human to do that which was strictly forbidden of a Kohathite priest? Once again

114

HOLY RELICS

we must query if this incident, claimed by Ron, was a reality. Further, if it did occur, was it an angel of God or a demon who passed the tablets to Ron? Clearly it is quite unlikely that that which is said to have taken place —Ron’s handling of the tables of stone—did actually take place. Let it not be forgotten that none of Ron’s Ark claims have ever been confirmed in the almost 18 years since Ron states he made the discovery. Ron has already set himself apart from most men. Numbers are said by Ron Wyatt to have died simply attempting to enter the “ark site.” Ron Wyatt, if his recorded claims are correct, has not only entered the chamber, but has viewed portions of the uncovered Ark, has viewed its contents and has even handled the sacred law and has viewed the Mercy Seat. All this God has forbidden even to Kohathite priests on pain of death. Is God a God who changeth not? or is Ron Wyatt a last day being, privileged beyond God’s command?

23

Disappointed Searchers

n 1989 a member of the Board of 3ABN (Three Angels Television Broadcasting), Herold Follett, became intrigued by Ron Wyatt’s archaeological claims. Follett, an attorney from Oregon, considered that it would provide a wonderful scoop for 3ABN if they could be the first television station to broadcast footage of the Ark of the Covenant. With the consent of the President of 3ABN, Danny Shelton, Follett approached Ron Wyatt seeking his co-operation, which he accorded to them. The account presented below is based upon a personal telephone conversation Russell had with Danny Shelton on the morning of September 30, 1998 (evening of September 29, United States time) just prior to his fourhour conversation with Ron Wyatt in Melbourne. Ron Wyatt’s account of events differs in some important details from that of Danny Shelton and this will be accorded due weight later. Danny Shelton, the President of 3ABN in Southern Illinois, stated that Wyatt’s agreement was based upon a request for $10,000 for equipment. This money was raised from a Tennessee benefactor who was also a member of the 3ABN Board. The benefactor said, “I lost money on several occasions with Ron Wyatt when he has promised this or that, but something like this if there is a chance, it would be worth it” (Video interview of Danny Shelton by Colin Standish, May 26, 1999). Upon arrival in Jerusalem the money was passed to Ron Wyatt. He and his wife, Mary Nell, were scarcely seen for the following three days. The 3ABN team of Danny Shelton, his brother Ronny, the videoist, Herold Follett, Danny’s wife, Linda, and May Chung was understandably anxious to proceed with the videoing as quickly as possible. The 3ABN team received another shock when they found five other videoists at the site. Ron had apparently promised them videoing rights. Of course the other videoists were equally unsuccessful in videoing the Ark of the Covenant. When pressed for action, Ron Wyatt descended into a cavity through a small opening. His report was less than reassuring. He stated that the entrance to the tunnel which led to the chamber in which the Ark of the Cov-

I

115

116

HOLY RELICS

enant was situated, was blocked by a partial cave-in which had deposited a huge amount of rubble and rock in front of the tunnel entrance. As delays and alibis continued, Follett’s initial confidence in Wyatt’s discoveries was tested. He felt a responsibility to the benefactor who had provided the $10,000, to produce the television coverage he had been promised. The donor had also made available $40,000 for a state of the art video camera. In frustration Follett decided that he, himself, would enter the cave where Wyatt had found the alleged cave-in. When Follett’s intention reached Ron Wyatt’s ears it is reported that he was furious. He threatened to “punch his lights out” if he undertook such verification. Notwithstanding this threat Follett did descend on a knotted rope to the floor of the cave below. There he discovered a room, small in size; Herold Follett’s estimate was 5 feet by 5 feet. This had apparently been chiseled out of the rock in times past. This was not the only time Ron Wyatt’s temper has been displayed. In 1997 he was speaking at Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Ron showed some irritation when two questioners asked him successively why a certain geologist (a different expert in each case) did not confirm his findings. When a third questioner cited yet a third expert in the field as opposing Ron’s claims, Ron forgot himself and stated that the last man mentioned had come up to him in Turkey and, in the hearing of Turkish officials, asked him why he was using a metal detector. In Turkey, as in numbers of countries, metal detectors are banned lest valuable discoveries are made which enrich the finder and not the nation. This is especially so where there are significant archaeological treasures yet to be discovered. Ron Wyatt related that he grabbed the archaeologist by the collar and said words to the effect if the man did not shut up he would smash his face in. The meeting was held in a Baptist Church. About 200 people were in attendance. An audible gasp was heard. Even the convenor of the meeting later judged that Ron “had shot himself in the foot.” Credible witnesses, Richard Humphries and Ron Vesey, both well known to us, are firsthand witnesses, who reported the incident. To Herold Follett’s surprise, when he descended into the room in the rock, he found no rubble or evidence of a cave-in in the room. Even more disconcerting, there was no tunnel entrance. The 3ABN team returned to the United States empty-handed and their anticipated world-first program displaying the Ark of the Covenant never eventuated. They returned also without the $10,000, which has not been returned more than ten years later. Russell presented this information to Ron Wyatt in their face to face discussion on September 30, 1998. Ron Wyatt’s slant on the events differs

Disappointed Searchers

117

somewhat. He stated that he did not ask for $10,000 but that it was offered during the initial approach to him. Wyatt agreed that the $10,000 was not returned but stated that Danny Shelton signed an agreement stating that no refund would be provided. We have a copy of this contract and can confirm that the contract, which originated from Ron Wyatt’s office, does state Wyatt’s assertion. However Danny, who only recently has been sent a copy of this contract, stated he has no recollection of signing the contract though he confirms it is his signature on the document. He is adamant that there was no signed document before they went to Jerusalem. His lawyer, Herold Follett is emphatic that he would not have allowed Danny to sign such a document. (Ibid.) Thus the signed document remains a mystery. Maybe if the original document were placed in evidence other than photo copies it would be easier to determine the authenticity of the signature. While avoiding comment upon the “punch his lights out” episode, Wyatt claimed that rather than hindering Follett’s descent into the room, he assisted it. He also stated that Ronnie Shelton held some reservations concerning the propriety of their viewing and videoing such a holy object. He therefore asked God for a sign. The entire week had been one of almost cloudless skies. Ronnie therefore asked for the sign that if their project was not of God, there would be rain before sunset on Sabbath. Half an hour before sunset the rain appeared. Accepting Ronnie’s sign, Ron Wyatt concluded that God was not pleased with the project and did not wish the videoing to continue. Ron Wyatt also expressed his belief that God had hidden the rubble and the entrance to the tunnel from Herold Follett’s eyes. But Ronnie categorically denies praying for such a sign. When asked about the alleged prayer Ronnie Shelton replied, “No, we just went down and it rained that evening and we went in spite of the rain.” (Ibid.) Despite the differences in reports between Danny Shelton and Ron Wyatt, three salient facts were agreed: 1. Ten thousand dollars were given to Ron Wyatt. 2. None of the claimed contents of the cave were revealed to the 3ABN team even before Ronnie’s claimed sign. 3. Ron Wyatt still has the $10,000. Ron Wyatt did state to Russell on September 30, 1998 that some of the money was used for the purchase of timber to shore up the tunnels. But Follett saw no such timber, nor did the room require shoring up as the ceiling was solid rock. Further, Danny Shelton in the video interview with

118

HOLY RELICS

Colin (May 26, 1999) stated that Ron had requested the money from him in order to buy sophisticated metal detection equipment, equipment which he did not buy during their visit to the site. Such an episode does not sit well with the folk at 3ABN Television. They, quite understandably, have no confidence that the claimed artifacts have been discovered. Danny Shelton believes that “the whole thing is a lie.” (Interview by Colin Standish of Danny Shelton, May 26, 1999)1 It is instructive to examine the contract claimed to have been signed by Danny Shelton for 3ABN and Mary Nell Wyatt (using her former surname for she was still using that name professionally) for Wyatt Archaeological Research. The document is presented below. This agreement is made this 18th day of January, 1989, between Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., herein after referred to as 3ABN and Biblical Truth Revealed, Inc., hereinafter referred as BTR [Ron Wyatt’s non-profit organization]. Whereas BTR and/or its agents believed to have located a chamber in which certain artifacts are located near Jerusalem, Israel, at a place mutually understood by the parties, and BTR is willing and desirous of opening the chamber with the financial assistance of 3ABN; Whereas 3ABN is desirous of assisting BTR in the above stated endeavor; IT IS THEREFORE AGREED: 1) 3ABN will pay the sum of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000) to BTR to assist in meeting expenses of BTR and/or its agents involved in the above stated endeavor. 2) BTR agrees to allow 3ABN to film the above mentioned artifacts in their chamber position. Under the control and direction of BTR, 3ABN may be allowed to film the process of removing debris from the chamber to cover the artifacts which may be within. 3) 3ABN will be allowed the use of the film obtained within their programs presented on their network, only. BTR will retain joint ownership with 3ABN of the film and/or video tape taken by 3ABN at the agree[d] upon location. It is agreed that the original film and/or video tapes shall be maintained in the custody of 3ABN unless otherwise agreed, and copies shall be made available to BTR, on a timely basis, to BTR. Cost of copies shall be borne by the party requesting, after the initial first copy. 4) It is further expressly understood that BTR expects to produce or have produced, an overall presentation of this event. BTR and 3ABN

Disappointed Searchers

119

agree that said video tapes and/or copies thereof may be used by BTR in the production of this presentation, in the event that 3ABN and BTR do not jointly produce such presentation. 5) It is understood by both parties that money and/or property may be due or become the property of the finder. Such shall first be credited or transferred to BTR as its sole and separate property to the extent of ONE MILLION DOLLARS (US) ($1,000,000.00), however, it will be the responsibility of 3ABN to secure such with the cooperation of BTR, and expenses directly related to this paragraph shall be charged against this portion, and the first TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS secured shall be released to BTR prior to expenses (Said TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS shall be and constitute a part of the said ONE MILLION DOLLARS). Any initial expenses relating to the securing of property rights above $100,000 shall be approved by both parties. Beyond this above stated amount, 3ABN and BTR shall each participate equally, less cost of securing the same, and 3ABN shall have primary responsibility, with the cooperation of BTR, unless other[wise] agreed by the parties. 6) It is expressly understood by 3ABN that there are risks that are beyond the control of BTR which may include, but not be limited to, the loss of permission to BTR from [several words struck out of document] to work on their site. In any event, moneys paid by 3ABN to BTR shall not be returned. 7)

The participation of 3ABN is at their own expense.

8)

Limitation on the presentation of the films are as follows:

a. Said programming will not be exposed to any expanded 3ABN network during 90 days from the date of this agreement, with the exception of the greater Bolder [sic], Colorado area and South Salem, Illinois area. b. It is further understood that 3ABN will not restructure programming content or delete any portion thereof that could mislead the public concerning the facts or assumptions surrounding this situation, and give special considerations to suggestion from BTR. 9. Any dispute between the parties to this agreement, shall be within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida.

[Signed] Some matters relating to this contract require explanation. It is seen that never once was 3ABN offered the viewing of the Ark of the Covenant, as would be expected if the Wyatts were convinced that the Ark has been found by Ron. The contract only refers to “Artifacts.” It is difficult to re-

120

HOLY RELICS

frain from forming the opinion that it is at least possible that the Wyatts dared not risk the promise of the videoing of the Ark of the Covenant in such a legal document. We do express surprise that Danny Shelton would place his signature on this contract if indeed he did (see above). Clearly he did not consult Herold Follett for no lawyer would countenance such a faulty offer. Although the term “artifacts” is used frequently, Ron Wyatt in his personal conversation with Russell did not deny the fact that it was the Ark of the Covenant which was sought. We also notice that the contract evidenced doubt that the chamber contained the “artifacts.” It stated— Under the control and direction of BTR, 3ABN MAY be allowed to film the process of removing debris from the chamber to cover the artifacts which may be within (emphasis added).

We are entitled to question the use of the word may in these two instances— “may be allowed to film” and “may be within.” We are entitled to an explanation for these doubts. We are also surprised by the pecuniary aspects of the contract. The demand for the first $1,000,000 derived from any proceeds from the sale of the material indicates that profit was a consideration, and a handsome profit at that. The first $200,000 was to be given to Biblical Truth Revealed Inc. (Wyatt) prior to any expenditure being deducted. Only after this initial payment could expenditures be deducted from the one million dollars.

___________________ 1

Video interview of Danny Shelton by Colin Standish is available from Hartland Publications, P. O. Box 1, Rapidan, Virginia 22733, USA. Audio tapes of the interview are also available.

24 T

Further Disappointment

HE 3ABN organization was not the sole group which expended means

in anticipation of viewing the Ark of the Covenant and returned home disappointed. Another group of searchers experienced a similar disappointment. Amongst this group was Dr. Bernard Brandstater, an Australian who was professor of Anesthetics in the American University in Beirut, Lebanon and later at Loma Linda University. His kindly report of his experience follows. I do not wish to condemn Ron Wyatt as a deceiver and a fraud. But I consider him to be an untrustworthy observer and witness. Several years ago I accepted his invitation to join him and others in an attempt to uncover the Ark of the Covenant, which he declared emphatically he had discovered, in an underground cavern within the grounds of Jerusalem’s Garden Tomb. I had been skeptical about his story, but he told it as an eyewitness account. And when I made my own private inquiries about Wyatt’s character and his reputation amongst fellow church members, I found confirmation that he was considered a man of integrity, honest, though overzealous and perhaps misled. If he told you something was so, he might be dead wrong, but he did truly believe what he was telling you. During ten days of hard digging at the Garden Tomb, with ten other invitees, I got to know Ron Wyatt well. He was clearly a passionate believer in the Bible story, and could discuss many Biblical themes with impressive fluency and conviction. His fund of real knowledge was thin, but I never had reason to doubt his sincerity. Unfortunately, his was a zeal without knowledge. Our digging yielded absolutely no results. When we had probed into the limestone rock as far as we could go, there was nothing to be seen, nothing to validate the story Wyatt had told us. He was confused by our empty-handedness, yet offered no explanation or apology. It was a deeply disappointing outcome for all of us invitees, committed Christian believers, who had come to Jerusalem at our own expense, purely on the basis of Wyatt’s testimony, which had proved to be patently false.

121

122

HOLY RELICS

This experience led me to seriously question other anecdotal claims that Wyatt made to me about the Tendurek Mountains supposed site for the Ark of Noah. He had told me of his own probing into the rockand-mud formation there, in the course of which he had broken into a subterranean cavity in which he had actually seen large corroded metal artifacts which he concluded were brackets used in the construction of the Ark. I reported these claims to Dr. John Baumgardner, who was with our group in Jerusalem, and who has made an extensive and very thorough survey of the whole Tendurek Mountains site. Dr. Baumgardner has assured me categorically that it is impossible that Wyatt could have made any discovery; that his own (Baumgardner’s) examination of the formation had revealed no trace of a probing such as Wyatt had claimed. The story had to be fabrication. I do not understand the mental process that enables a man to so delude himself and others. He gives persuasive evidence of being a converted devout Christian. Yet he has a capacity for invention that is staggering. He has continued to repeat and embellish his Ararat story, in both public lectures and on television, and has thereby raised funds with which to continue his Indiana Jones brand of archeological adventurism. I am sorry that he misleads a lot of sincere people. The irony is that he seems to believe his own amazing fabrications. I offer this statement without any intention of harming Ron Wyatt, but rather to limit the number of those who will be swayed by the eloquence and conviction with which Wyatt relates his story.— (Letter written by Dr. Bernard Brandstater to Dr. Andrew Snelling, dated 9 Oct., 1995)

First-hand experiences such as these must not be ignored. They are serious. If Ron Wyatt were a Roman Catholic priest rather than a professed Seventh-day Adventist, in view of the multitude of unsolved questions concerning his “discoveries,” the plethora of alibis as substitutes for evidences, the multitude of scientific faux pas and the faulted documentation, how many of us would give credence to the priest’s claims? This is a proper question upon which those who have been influenced by Ron Wyatt’s material need to ponder. However Dr. Bernard Brandstater has explained why so many listeners to Ron Wyatt’s presentations have become such unwavering believers in his claims and such staunch defenders of Ron against anyone who dares to question the authenticity of those claims. Here are some of the reasons. 1. He comes through as a man of integrity and honesty. 2. He is perceived as a passionate believer in the Bible.

Further Disappointment

123

3.

He has committed to memory the Bible stories relevant to his claimed discoveries. 4. He gives evidence of being a converted Christian (however there have been occasions when he has shown sudden bursts of temper and used vulgar language). We would also add that his presentations have the air of genuiness because 1. His presentations are presented in a very low-key manner. 2. He regularly hesitates with deep breaths and sighing when discussing with great emotion the more moving claims he makes. 3. At times he invokes great sympathy from his audiences by weeping. But again none of these “evidences” meet the Biblical tests of genuine truth. Brilliant actors who are non-believers perform such before their audiences. One issue arising out of the experience of the disappointed searchers is the failure of confirmation of the assertion that Ron Wyatt has an excavator’s license from the Israeli authorities. Indeed, the Israel Antiquities Authority categorically stated that Ron Wyatt has never been issued such a license. In a letter to Pastor Ron Spear, dated November, 1998, Osnat Guaz, spokeswoman for the Department of Education and Information for the Israel Antiquities Authority stated: Thank you for your faxletter dated Nov. 16, 1998 asking about Ron Wyatt. We cannot confirm his finds and have no information about them. Ron Wyatt has never received a license from the Israel Antiquities Authority to excavate in Israel. If he says he has excavated in Israel, he has committed an illegal act since every excavation in Israel must be licensed by our Authority (or our predecessor, the Israel Department of Antiquities).

In view of both 3ABN, which claimed that Ron Wyatt had some uncouth Australians helping in the excavation, and Bernard Brandstater agreeing that some activity occurred in the conspicuous tourist vicinity of the Garden Tomb, it is surprising that Ron Wyatt was not apprehended by the authorities if he were acting illegally. But we received a reasonable explanation from Joseph Zias (see chapter entitled, “The Concerns of the Israeli Authorities”). Yet Ron Wyatt has not, as yet, months after the Spear letter was well circulated, produced his license. If we were accused by the relevant Government authority of not possessing a driver’s license, we would simply reach into our pockets, withdraw our wallets and produce the said

124

HOLY RELICS

license for inspection. That would settle the matter. Why does Ron Wyatt not do likewise? (For a more detailed discussion of this issue see chapter entitled “The Elusive Excavating Permit.”) Ron Wyatt (USA), Jonathan Gray (Australia) and John Berglund (Norway) take regular tour parties to the various sites. The great majority return convinced of the authenticity of Ron Wyatt’s claims. But we have been impressed by the paucity of the finds which any with whom we have spoken, have seen. All have seen the sulfur balls at the claimed site of Gomorrah. But does that fact plus Wyatt’s assurance of the identification provide solid proof of identity? Certainly not! Most have seen the “site of the Red Sea Crossing” and the pillar on the Egyptian side which is attributed to Solomon. But listen, It is evident that at one time the location of the Red Sea crossing site was common knowledge. Further discoveries by Ron reveal that king Solomon not only knew, but also marked the site with two memorial pillars. When Ron first visited Nuweiba in 1978, he found a Phoenician-style column lying on the beach. Unfortunately, the inscriptions had been eroded away, or had possibly been purposefully chiseled away. When Ron pointed this column out to the soldiers occupying the area, they moved it across the road and set it up in concrete. The column’s importance was not understood until 1984, when Ron was being detained for a time by Saudi Arabian Authorities. To verify Ron’s claim of the crossing site, the Saudi authorities took Ron by helicopter to the beach opposite Nuweiba. As they landed, a second granite column was found—identical to the first one Ron found on the opposite shore—except on this one the inscription was still intact. In Phoenician letters (Archaic Hebrew), it contained the words: Mizraim (Egypt); Solomon; Edom; death; Pharaoh; Moses; and Yahweh, indicating that King Solomon had set up the columns as a memorial to the miracle of the crossing of the sea. Perhaps fearing other unauthorized visitors, the Saudi Authorities have since removed this column, and replaced it with a flag marker at the spot where it stood. (International Discovery Times, p.4)

Once more the crucial evidence is denied us. The pillar on the western shore where the tour groups visit contains no writing to identify its purpose. It has been stated by Ron Wyatt to have been either eroded or chiseled away.

Further Disappointment

125

Thus the visitors have seen a column devoid of identification. And further we are assured that it would be useless to enter Saudi Arabia to read the inscription on the column said to have been preserved because since Ron Wyatt saw it, it has been removed. How often we have found such blocks to verification! We could take a tour-group to the shores of Sydney Harbour and point out a little bay on the north bank and declare it to be the site of the landing of the first British settlers. Uninformed tourists would be predisposed to believe us as tour-group leaders, if they had no contrary information. They may well report to their friends back home that they had seen the very spot where the first white settlers to Australia landed. But had they? Certainly not! Historical records and archaeological digs which can be verified all certify that the first settlers landed at Sydney Cove on the south side of the harbor. It is time that God’s people lifted the standard of evidence that they demand prior to accepting new claims, especially in these days of gross deception. None with whom we have spoken has seen the only relics which Ron Wyatt alone has claimed to have discovered— 1. The Ark of the Covenant 2. The Seven Golden Candlesticks 3. The Table of Shewbread 4. The Altar of Incense 5. The Ephod 6. The Mitre 7. Goliath’s Sword 8. The Golden Censer 9. Christ’s blood on the Mercy Seat 10. The bodies of Noah and his wife 11. Noah’s Wife’s jewelry When these are seen and verified to be genuine by credible experts skilled both in Scripture and the relevant science, then these tour-groups will have had their money’s worth. Until then, at the very least Ron Wyatt’s claims must remain unconfirmed.

25

Other Deceptions

N SABBATH afternoon, January 9, 1999 Russell sat with a group of over 30 earnest believers. He knew almost all of them personally. The great majority were sincere in their promotion of Ron Wyatt’s “discoveries.” One truly fine, Christian man who had recently been baptized, testified that it was the September 1998 Wyatt presentations in Melbourne which had drawn his attention to the Lord. Praise God that this man is now a convicted Seventh-day Adventist. In the course of the afternoon’s discussion, someone introduced a newsletter report of the September 1998 public presentations by Ron Wyatt in Melbourne and Ballarat. The Newsletter stated:

O

Ron was asked about the account given in Jonathan’s [Gray’s] book The Ark of the Covenant where, on pages 361–363, there is an account of Ron meeting someone who was “at least” an angel according to Ron. As Ron gave us a more detailed account we were watching Ron closely as he paused, took a deep breath, and with deep emotion said, “And there stood Jesus Christ.” Ron explained that He was dressed exactly as Ellen White saw Him in vision, with the blue border at the hem of His garment. Ron said He had the kindest eyes he had ever seen, and Ron could tell that He knew everything about him. Jonathan’s account on page 363 [of his book Ark of the Covenant] says, “whether Christ or angel.” My impression, and I think that of all who were present, was that what Ron had said was the truth. Let the reader of this narrative judge for him or herself. —(Sabbath House Newsletter No.11, Oct.11, 1998 pp. 3,4)

One or two present with Russell contested the accuracy of this report, but two men who had been present when the quoted statement was made confirmed that the editor of the Sabbath House Newsletter had reported accurately. Ron Wyatt’s claim was that he had spoken with Christ face to face. (See chapter entitled “The Concerns of the Israeli Authorities” for another report).

126

Other Deceptions

127

This is no minor claim. It merits consideration. The Ark of the Covenant report of this incident states that when Ron was discouraged, a man in white appeared and said to Ron, “God bless you for what you are doing” (Jonathan Gray Ark of the Covenant, p. 361). The stranger stated that he was on his way “from South Africa to the New Jerusalem” (Ibid., p. 362). It was stated that no one in the vicinity had seen this stranger, but an associate heard his voice (Mary Nell Wyatt, Ark of the Covenant, p. 22). Since Christ warned more than once to beware of false Christs, surely it would be prudent if one saw such a stranger to consider whether this was really Christ or a deception. Yet in none of the three accounts from which we have quoted—Mary Nell Wyatt, Jonathan Gray and Sabbath House Newsletter—is this possibility considered. It is as if Christ gave no such warning. With such warnings, surely it is courting peril to assume that there is only one possible identification of one appearing to be Christ. Unless we are more alert than this, we will surely fall into the trap of the Roman Catholics who never consider that the Mary of the apparitions is any other than the Biblical Mary. We would possess no hesitation to warn a Catholic claiming to see Mary that he or she must beware of Satan’s deceptions. Yet often we are less cautious of such Biblical warnings ourselves than we are when we apply them to Catholics. Such failure to consider deception will inevitably lead us into Spiritism in the same manner the Roman Catholics have been led by the Marian apparitions. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:5) Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. (Matthew 24:23– 26) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Mark 13:6) And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. (Mark 13:21,22) And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. (Luke 21:8)

128

HOLY RELICS

These passages of Scripture should be warning enough. There should be no rush to accept Ron Wyatt’s uncorroborated testimony. No one else saw the stranger. Furthermore, even if we had, we still have no right to attribute his presence to Christ. Indeed the evidence of Scripture is all the other way. Knowing full well that Christ is emphatic that the very greatest deception of the last days is the personation of Christ, we should hesitate to make such claims. But the matter is even more serious than that. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or there; believe it not. (Matthew 24:23, emphasis added) Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold he is in the desert, go not forth; behold he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. (Matthew 24:26, emphasis added) And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived; for many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them (Luke 21:8, emphasis added).

Why did Christ declare such blanket prohibitions? There are no exceptions expressed—not one. Fortunately Scripture answers this proffered question: For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:27, emphasis added).

When the word “For” is used in this manner it indicates that the words following present a reason. Why should we disbelieve accounts of Christ being seen on earth here and there? Because, the Scripture states: quoting the words of Christ Himself, Christ will only be seen at His second Coming. For this reason the two angels informed the disciples that they would next see Him at His second coming: And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel: Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven (Acts 1:10,11).

This statement provides strong evidence that the apostles would no longer see Christ in person prior to the Second Coming. It was consistent with Christ’s promise to the discouraged disciples: Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare

Other Deceptions

129

a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (John 14:1–3)

True to these statements, there is no record of any person in apostolic times having seen Christ in person after His ascension. Paul and his companions heard His voice but Scripture specifically attests that they saw no man: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:4–7, emphasis added)

John saw Christ in vision and also heard His voice: I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth , and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Revelation 1:10–18)

Sister White also saw Christ in vision. One instance of this is recorded in Early Writings pages 36 and 37. But none have seen Christ in person since His ascension. Thus Christ could safely prohibit us without reservation from believing any report whatsoever that anyone has seen Christ in person since His ascension. Had this not been so, we may have been placed in dire straits

130

HOLY RELICS

when such reports came to our ears which we ourselves were in no position to confirm or even evaluate on the basis of the law and the testimony. But we have been warned, and warned many times. With total confidence we can and must reject Ron Wyatt’s claim that He spoke to Christ in person. He did not! The word of Scripture must supplant the word of man. Ron Wyatt also claims that he has met and spoken to four “angels,” dressed as men and of human appearance, who constantly guard the Ark of the Covenant: Firstly, the cave in which Ron found the Ark was found to be “cleaned up” on one of the last occasions Ron went in before returning to the USA. This is attested to in Jonathan Gray’s book, the Ark of the Covenant, on page 588. If you do not yet have a copy it is available from us here—see booklist attached. In this reference Jonathan tells of Ron’s discovery of four “young men” in there [who were] four angels, who are mentioned in two old books recorded in Jonathan’s book also on page 588. These angels, it says, guard the Ark wherever it goes. Ron said when he went into what was a cave that was “chocka-block” with debris and items from the first temple, he found it was all cleared and tidied up, with the furniture arranged as it would have been in the first temple. The back wall was aglow, and yes, he confirmed that the four young men were angels. Ron said he was very startled but not scared. He said his body function such as breathing seemed to cease. He is not sure if his heart also stopped and said, “it must have kept going because I am still here.” This is reminiscent of the experiences Ellen White had while in visions that the Lord gave her. Ron said one angel conversed with him and he was instructed to take the Ten Commandments out of the Ark and place them where he could take a video film of them. Unlike the earlier photographs of the Ark which were blurred, this film was very clear when developed. [Yet to the best of our knowledge these photographs have been revealed to no other human being] The angels lifted the Mercy Seat for Ron, as it is solid gold several inches thick and very heavy. Ron was only able to tell us that the tablets of stone, written by the Finger of God, are written on all four sides. He was instructed not to reveal any more yet. Ron indicated that he considers they will be revealed along with all the evidence of Christ’s Blood when the Mark of the Beast is in full force, which he feels could be as early as this time next year, perhaps a little longer. (Sabbath House Newsletter, op.cit., p.2)

Now there are a number of matters in this paragraph which require notice. First, Jonathan Gray’s report of this matter is used as confirmation of Ron

Other Deceptions

131

Wyatt’s claimed meeting of the angels. We are told that Jonathan Gray “attests” to Ron Wyatt’s report. Gray does not, of course, attest to (confirm) the Wyatt claim; he simply reported it. Jonathan, having never seen the Ark of the Covenant nor the claimed chamber where it is said to be housed, was in no position to attest to this matter. We must be careful in the use of our words. Second, again it will be noticed that no consideration is given in any of the reports of the presence of angels, that if Wyatt’s report is correct, these “angels” could be of Satanic origin. When Russell met with Ron Wyatt on September 30, 1998, he did bring such a possibility to Ron’s attention and asked the basis upon which Ron was certain that these were heavenly angels. Ron replied that the fact that they were guarding the ark and their words convinced him of this matter. But is such evidence sufficient in this day when we are warned, “Take heed that no man deceive you”? We believe not. Third, Ron Wyatt has reported that one of the angels invited him to remove the two tables of stone from the ark in order to photograph them. The great majority of faithful Christians would not venture near the Ark of the Covenant itself even if they knew where it was located. The authors most certainly would not see their ordination to the gospel ministry as grounds for permission to enter into the presence of that where God’s glory was manifested. In the early 1980s a Seventh-day Adventist pastor claimed that he had discovered the Ark of the Covenant. He invited 16 pastors in whom he had a measure of confidence to accompany him to the claimed site. Colin was one of the selected pastors, but he dared not accept the invitation. Significantly that pastor is now deceased and the Ark of the Covenant is not revealed. Ron Wyatt, however, has claimed more. He states that he has actually held the sacred tables of the covenant in his hands, and has lived to reveal the story (See chapter entitled “Handling the Tables of Stone”). The handing of the tables of stone to Ron by the “angels” parallels very closely the record of the serpent handing the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to Eve, (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 55) for both held objects forbidden by God to be touched. We would not desire to push this parallel beyond this. But both were forbidden to the touch of those who possessed none of the designated credentials. Indeed, the prophet Moses alone placed his hands on the sacred tables of the law.

132

HOLY RELICS

Once again we note as our fourth comment, that Ron Wyatt has received a prohibition for full revelation, this time not from the secular Israeli authorities but from “heavenly angels.” We are told to await the imposition of the Mark of the Beast “in full force” in order to receive the irrefutable evidence of the discovery of the Ten Commandments and the blood (conversation between Russell Standish and Ron Wyatt, September 30, 1998). One wonders what “in full force” will be interpreted to mean in the future. Clearly it does not mean the legislating of Sunday laws with minor penalties for breaches. Perhaps it means when we can no longer buy or sell, when the death decree is passed at which time confirmation from a human standpoint will be well-nigh impossible. In this case Ron Wyatt will have excluded all possibility of confirmation. It will then not be possible to take geneticists or hematologists to the site as Ron Wyatt has proposed (Mary Nell Wyatt, op.cit., p. 23) for we will have no money to pay for such work. If this is what is meant it could prove to be a rather empty promise. In Russell’s personal conversation with Ron Wyatt in Melbourne on September 30, 1998, Ron had initially replied to Russell’s question concerning the reason that he would not produce evidence of the blood findings, that he could not do so because of the prohibition of the Israeli authorities. About two hours later Russell asked Ron why, if God was commanding him to reveal these matters, he listened to the forbiddings of a secular state. It was at this time that Ron stated that he had a second prohibition, this time from an angel, forbidding the revelation of the blood’s chromosomal composition until the Sunday law was enacted. Russell is still puzzled by the fact that this much more important prohibition was not mentioned when Russell posed his initial question. We also find it curious that the Israeli Government, which surely can have no interest in the blood as it is said to relate to lighting the fuse for a Middle East war of gigantic proportions, should echo the prohibition of God’s angels. It must be emphasized that Ron Wyatt was not, in his reply, referring to the distaste of religious Jews for any evidence that Christ was the Messiah. He confined his remarks to the potential Arab-Israeli conflict. As we have already pointed out, the Jews cannot possibly believe that evidence of the chromosome count in the blood would cause a war, since neither they, nor the Moslems believe in the divinity of Christ. The desire of the Jerusalem laboratory to keep secret their findings according to Wyatt, offers yet a third alibi for not revealing the blood report. Another question related to this matter surrounds the puzzling fact that Ron Wyatt has not, at the date of writing, bothered to confirm the results of

Other Deceptions

133

the unspecified Jerusalem laboratory by asking an American laboratory to re-test the blood. Ron stated to Russell that he does possess some of the blood still. This neglect is difficult to fathom. If the Jews in the Jerusalem laboratory prove to be reluctant to affirm the presence of blood so depleted of chromosomes as to infer that it was Christ’s blood, wisdom would dictate that a competent laboratory in the United States be sought in order to repeat the examination. In any case, a finding so incredible as that claimed, at the very least merits a second opinion. If such a finding were confirmed, whether it be in New York or London, Tokyo or Jerusalem, it would be a rare laboratory which would shun the worldwide acclaim generated by the publication of the results of their testing. Of course non-believers would strain their minds to provide secular mechanisms for the discovery, but publish it they most certainly would. The fifth observation we would make concerns the claim that Ron Wyatt’s breathing ceased, a sign that he possesses at least one sign of a prophet (see Daniel 10:17). This fact was not lost on the editor as he aligned Ron Wyatt’s report with the demonstrated lack of breathing during Sister White’s visions. But there is one marked distinction between the two experiences. Sister White’s absence of breathing while in vision was not reported by herself. She, being in vision, was unaware of the fact that she was not breathing. Apnea was observed by others and verified by demonstrable evidence on a number of occasions. There should be no hasty judgment concerning a prophetic role for one whose claims contain such a huge deficit of evidential substance. Some accepting this view have already discovered that premature acceptance of the prophetic gift of people such as Jeanine Sautron led them down a blind alley. One of Ron Wyatt’s most prominent supporters once traversed that blind alley. He should hesitate to do so once more. Let such not traverse yet another such path. Some further interesting claims have been forthcoming: The Israeli government, at one stage, sent a group of six Israelis in to bring the Ark of the Covenant out in order to place it in a more permanent Jewish location in Jerusalem. These six men were dressed as Levitical priests. They managed to get about one third of the way into the cave when they all died of strokes. Ron feels sure the angels would have done that. He mentioned that there were 16 deaths so far involving people who had tried to block or interfere with the discoveries. We added a seventeenth. Some readers will remember the ABC TV program discrediting the discovery of Noah’s Ark some time ago. The man interviewed, Dave Fasold, had been an original team member with Ron. The story is that he was paid a substantial

134

HOLY RELICS

amount to go on TV discrediting the find. Dave, and his wife, have both died of brain tumours, and also the TV interviewer has died suddenly. I leave you to draw your own conclusions. (Ibid., p. 2)

Our first question is, Why would the Israeli government decide to remove the Ark to a more permanent location? According to Ron Wyatt the Israeli officials wanted silence upon the issue of the Ark of the Covenant. Surely the removal of such an historical treasure to a new location would have attracted great media attention. Would that have led to an Arab-Israeli war? If six men died simultaneously of strokes attempting to obtain the ark for the Jewish nation, surely this would indicate that the ark has to be approached with great caution, if at all. Well may we ask why the Arab lad whom Ron said he sent into the “Ark Chamber” was not struck dead. In fact there has been produced no evidence to support the simultaneous deaths of these six men. We should be careful in drawing conclusions from the illness and deaths of David Fasold and his wife. Ron Wyatt in 1998 underwent surgery for a serious condition. It would be crass to use this fact as evidence that he was a fraud. If we come to conclusions such as these we should at least be consistent in our application of the rules. But we would suggest these matters be left with God where they belong. He, alone, really knows. We most certainly do not. We must also draw the reader’s attention to the fact that most of those who now oppose Ron’s “findings,” including John Baumgartner, the men of Creation Science Institute, the staff of 3ABN, several Jewish authorities, and scientists of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, are, as at the time of this writing, still very much alive. The clear inference of the above quotation is that David Fasold altered his former convictions in order to receive remuneration from the TV station. This is incorrect. David had previously examined the scientific evidence and had concluded, like many others, that the evidence did not support the claim. This was prior to his being approached for the interview (Lorence Collins; Ronald Fasold, Internet Article).

26 T

Will the Ten Commandments Be Displayed?

answer to the question, Will the Ten Commandments be displayed? is an emphatic—Yes!

HE

The precious record of the law was placed in the ark of the testament and is still there, safely hidden from the human family. But in God’s appointed time He will bring forth these tables of stone to be a testimony to all the world against the disregard of His commandments and against the idolatrous worship of a counterfeit Sabbath (Manuscript 122, 1901).

The next question we would advance is, When will these tables of the law be brought forth? Sister White does answer this question. When the judgment shall sit and the books shall be opened, and every man shall be judged according to the things written in the books, then the tables of stone, hidden by God until that day, will be presented before the world as the standard of righteousness (Review & Herald, Jan. 28, 1909).

The judgment sat and the books were opened on October 22, 1844 and is still convening. Yet Sister White leaves no doubt that the open display of the Commandments was future to her date of writing, that is, after January 28, 1909. The introduction of the words “and every man shall be judged” suggests that the judgment will be concluded before the tables of the law are revealed. We are provided a further clue to the answer to our question from a passage of the Spirit of Prophecy: The tables of stone are hidden by God, to be produced in the great judgment day (Review & Herald, March 26, 1908).

This statement raises the question of when is the “great judgment day”? A study of the Spirit of Prophecy writings shows that Sister White uses this term in at least three ways:

135

136

HOLY RELICS

1.

Passages where the time of the Great Judgment Day is unspecified.

All are called to do service for Him, and for the manner in which they have met this claim, all will be required to render an account at the great judgment day. (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 326)

2.

Probably during the time of the Investigative Judgment.

In the parable, when the king inquired, “How camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?” the man was speechless. So it will be in the great judgment day. Men may now excuse their defects of character, but in that day they will offer no excuse. (Ibid., p. 317)

3.

At the Second Coming

At the great judgment day Christ will come “in the glory of His Father with His angels.” Matthew 16:27. He shall then sit upon the throne of His glory and before Him shall be gathered all nations. (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 339)

So how do we know which of the two specified “great judgment days” is indicated by the passage quoted above from the Review and Herald, January 28, 1909? Inspiration must be its own interpreter. Twice in the book, Great Controversy, we are told that the tables of the law will be revealed to the people. The first is just prior to Christ’s second coming. At that time Sister White states, While these words of holy trust ascend to God, the clouds sweep back, and the starry heavens are seen, unspeakably glorious in contrast with the black and angry firmament on either side. The glory of the celestial city streams from the gates ajar. Then there appears against the sky a hand holding two tables of stone folded together, Says the prophet: “The heavens shall declare His righteousness: for God is judge Himself.” Psalm 50:6. That holy law, God’s righteousness, that amid thunder and flame was proclaimed from Sinai as the guide of life, is now revealed to men as the rule of judgment. The hand opens the tables, and there are seen the precepts of the Decalogue, traced as with a pen of fire. The words are so plain that all can read them. Memory is aroused, the darkness of superstition and heresy is swept from every mind, and God’s ten words, brief, comprehensive, and authoritative, are presented to the view of all the inhabitants of the earth. (Great Controversy, p. 639)

The second occasion that the tables of the law are revealed is at the time of Christ’s third advent, as the wicked come up with the aim of taking the New Jerusalem.

Will the Ten Commandments Be Displayed?

137

As if entranced, the wicked have looked upon the coronation of the Son of God. They see in His hands the tables of the divine law, the statutes which they have despised and transgressed. They witness the outburst of wonder, rapture, and adoration from the saved; and as the wave of melody sweeps over the multitudes without the city, all with one voice exclaim, “Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints” (Revelation 15:3); and, falling prostrate, they worship the Prince of life. (Great Controversy, pp. 668, 669)

Since inspiration informs us of two specific occasions when the tables of the law will be displayed, wisdom dictates that we not impose other times by means of our own guesswork. The second coming, as we have seen, is referred to as “the great judgment day.” We have cited Patriarchs and Prophets p. 339 above in documentation. This designation is also applied on other occasions to the Second Coming. We cite two other passages as instances: In visions of the great judgment day the inspired messengers of Jehovah were given glimpses of the consternation of those unprepared to meet their Lord in peace. “Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof; ... because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate. ... The mirth of tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice endeth, the joy of the harp ceaseth.” Isaiah 24:1–8 “Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come. ...” (Prophets and Kings, p. 726, elipses in original) Terribly will that prayer be fulfilled in the great judgment day. When Christ shall come to the earth again, not as a prisoner surrounded by a rabble will men see Him. They will see Him then as heaven’s King. Christ will come in His own glory, and in the glory of the holy angels. (Desire of Ages, p. 739)

We may go beyond inspiration if we wish, God gives us that choice. But wise Seventh-day Adventists will hesitate to do so. Let us now summarize that which we have confirmed from the clear words of inspiration—

138 1. 2.

HOLY RELICS

The tables of the law will be revealed (Manuscript 122, 1901). They will be revealed at the great judgment day (Review and Herald, Jan. 28, 1909). 3. It is God and not man who will bring forth the tables of stone (Manuscript 122, 1901). 4. The term “the great judgment day” is used to refer to two different times— a. During the time of the investigative judgment (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 317). b. At Christ’s second coming (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 339, Prophets and Kings, p. 726, Desire of Ages, p. 739). 5. Inspiration declares that the tables of the law will be revealed on two occasions a. The time just prior to the second coming (Great Controversy, p. 639) b. At the time of the third coming (Ibid., 668). The time of Christ’s Second Coming is referred to as “the great judgment day.” It is also declared that just prior to that event the tables of the law will be revealed. We would then conclude that there is no warrant in inspiration to assert that the Ten Commandments written by God’s own hand upon the tables of stone will be discovered prior to the close of human probation. This could well be the reason why Ron Wyatt provides excuses for not providing any genuine verification of the claimed discovery. If “an angel” has handed to him two tables of stone, then he would be well advised to consider seriously Christ’s warnings concerning Satanic deceptions, lest unwittingly he be beguiled by Spiritism. One matter is certain, Inspiration declares that, when revealed, the tables of the law will be open to the inspection of multitudes. In no manner could Ron Wyatt’s claimed personal viewing meet the fulfillment of that prophecy. Rather than revealing the tables of the Ten Commandments, he, if he has really seen them, is concealing them.

27

A Serious Deviation from Seventh-day Adventist Doctrine

Wyatt’s contention that he has discovered blood on the Mercy Seat may make an initial positive impact upon the mind. It may even appear to some to be a meeting of the sacrificial atonement and the final atonement, although we have not heard such a view expressed; but after due consideration, most would discover such a view impossible to sustain. If, as Ron Wyatt proposes, blood fell on the Mercy Seat when Christ died at the Passover of A.D. 31, this would indeed be a curious happening. It would most certainly necessitate Seventh-day Adventists re-examining crucial areas of their faith and necessitate a re-defining of doctrine. Let us examine two great periods of feasts in the Jewish annual calendar. The third, the summer festival of Pentecost, is not relevant to our present discussion. The spring and autumn festivals centering on the Passover and the Day of Atonement, respectively, were separated by a period of six months. The Passover was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month (Leviticus 23:5) and the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month (Leviticus 23:27). These two festivals could not have been more widely separated in time. There was an important reason for the maximization of this separation. The three festivals held at the time of the Passover centered on Christ’s incomparable sacrifice which transpired in A.D. 31. The three Day of Atonement festivals, on the other hand, centered on the events of the final atonement which commenced on October 22, 1844, over 1,800 years later. There was yet another significant difference. The spring festival occupied a total of 8 days. On the other hand the autumn festivals extended for 22 days, a period almost three times longer than the time occupied by the spring festival. This disparity in time was symbolic of the far shorter period of time over which the antitypical Passover extended. We marvel at the temporal precision with which the passover was fulfilled. In the type the Passover lamb was sacrificed on the 14th day of the

R

ON

139

140

HOLY RELICS

first Jewish month, Nisan, A.D. 31. The pascal lamb was slaughtered at the time of the evening sacrifice of the Passover day: When the loud cry, “It is finished,” came from the lips of Christ, the priests were officiating in the temple. It was the hour of the evening sacrifice. The lamb representing Christ had been brought to be slain. Clothed in his significant and beautiful dress, the priest stood with lifted knife, as did Abraham when he was about to slay his son. With intense interest the people were looking on. But the earth trembles and quakes; for the Lord Himself draws near. With a rending noise the inner veil of the temple is torn from top to bottom by an unseen hand, throwing open to the gaze of the multitude a place once filled with the presence of God. In this place the Shekinah had dwelt. Here God had manifested His glory above the mercy seat. No one but the high priest ever lifted the veil separating this apartment from the rest of the temple. He entered in once a year to make an atonement for the sins of the people. But lo, this veil is rent in twain. The most holy place of the earthly sanctuary is no longer sacred. All is terror and confusion. The priest is about to slay the victim; but the knife drops from his nerveless hand, and the lamb escapes. (The Desire of Ages, pp. 756, 757)

Thus Christ died not only at the precise time of the typical sacrifice, but on the exact day. Scripture records that at Christ’s death the veil of the temple was rent: Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent (Matthew 27:50,51).

Truly Paul wrote: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1Corinthians 5:8).

On the fourteenth day of the first month, Jesus our Passover Lamb was crucified, thus fulfilling the type. The ceremonial Sabbath was celebrated on the 15th day of the first month, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. (Leviticus 23:6,7)

A Serious Deviation

141

This Sabbath day prophesied of Christ’s day of rest in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea. Once again, the antitype precisely fulfilled the type, for Christ rested in that tomb throughout the entire hours of the 15th day of the first month A.D. 31. On the 16th day of the first month, the day following the Sabbath, was celebrated the feast of first fruits: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come unto the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. (Leviticus 23:10,11) The Passover was followed by the seven days’ feast of unleavened bread. On the second day of the feast, the first fruits of the year’s harvest, a sheaf of barley, was presented before the Lord. (The Desire of Ages, p.77)

Scripture precisely states the symbolism between this ceremony and the resurrection of our Savior: But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. (1 Corinthians 15:20)

In fulfillment of the type, Christ arose from the dead on the 16th day of the first Jewish month, A.D. 31. We cannot but be struck by the precision in which the spring festival details were fulfilled. Few people give thought to the fact that the books of Exodus and Leviticus are amongst the mightiest prophetic books of the entire Scripture, for they prophesy in great detail of the plan of salvation, centering upon Christ’s sacrifice and His resurrection and the final atonement, together with the infilling of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Thus we may rightly conclude that: The type had reached the antitype when CHRIST, the LAMB of God without blemish, died upon the cross. (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p.225, emphasis in the original).

But there was more. The Passover prophesied that not a single bone of Christ’s body would be broken in His death: They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it. (Numbers 9:12)

This prophecy met its antitype in Christ’s death. Although His flesh was severely damaged—His brow, His back, His hands, His feet and His side,

142

HOLY RELICS

and despite the fracturing of the leg bones of the two malefactors, Scripture records that, But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled. A bone of him shall not be broken. (John 19:33– 36).

During the Passover service the Jews were commanded to partake of bitter herbs, symbolic of the bitter insults and agonies endured by our Redeemer in His death: And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. (Exodus 12:8)

The Old Testament prophets expounded upon the details of that bitterness. Ten such acts of bitterness are cited below with their fulfillment in the antitype on the Passover Day: 1. Rejected He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (Isaiah 53:3) He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (John 1:11)

2.

Betrayed by a Friend

Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. (Psalm 41:9) And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them. (Mark 14:10)

3.

Sold

And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. (Zechariah 11:13) And said unto them, What will he give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. (Matthew 26:15)

4.

False Witnesses

Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty. (Psalm 27:12)

A Serious Deviation

143

But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. (Matthew 26:60,61)

5.

Smitten and Spat Upon

I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. (Isaiah 50:6) And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands. (Mark 14:65)

6.

Hated

They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away. (Psalm 69:4) He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. (John 15:23–25)

7. Hands and Feet Pierced For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (Psalm 22:16) Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27)

8.

Mocked and Insulted

But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. (Psalm 22:6–8) And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. (Matthew 27: 39,40)

9.

His side pierced

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look

144

HOLY RELICS

upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (Zechariah 12:10) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. (John 19:34)

10. Clothes taken They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. (Psalm 22:18) And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. (Mark 15:24)

We have seen that every prophecy of the spring festival was fulfilled precisely. The type was very explicit, even to the offer of gall and vinegar, a matter which to some would seem to be inconsequential: They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. (Psalm 69:21) They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. (Matthew 27:34)

For fully 15 centuries the Passover service was held. The prophetic rituals were followed. At the spring festival of A.D. 31 every one was fulfilled. It is pertinent to our discussion to take note that in all these 15 centuries not once, we repeat, not once, was blood, much less blood and water placed on the Mercy Seat during the Passover services. Now if an event as significant as blood falling on the Mercy Seat, a matter of far more significance than the offer of gall and vinegar to Christ or even the lottery for His clothing, were to occur during the Passover, surely it would have been foreshadowed in the type or in Old Testament prophecy. But it was not! Why? This question can only be answered by an examination of the events of the Day of Atonement and the significance of those events for upon that day, the 10th day of the 7th month, and that day alone, was blood sprinkled upon the Mercy Seat.

28

The Day of Atonement

we examine the services of the Day of Atonement, we need to examine one passage from the Spirit of Prophecy. The book, The Desire of Ages, states that the blood of Christ and the water gushed out of Christ’s side in two distinct streams.

B

EFORE

From the wound thus made, there flowed two copious and distinct streams, one of blood, the other of water. (Desire of Ages, p. 772)

We may reflect upon this interesting fact for a moment. The reader will recognize that this fact in no manner negates the crucial claim in RonWyatt’s presentation. His claim still is that that blood fell on the Mercy Seat during the Passover. Such symbolism, as we have seen, violates the sanctuary message, for in symbol it would indicate that the atonement was finalized at the cross and our sins blotted out at that time. Water is far less viscous than blood and what is more, has no ability to clot. If blood passed through the crack, then water would have more easily done so and consequently would fall on the Mercy Seat. Indeed it would have preceeded the blood to the Mercy Seat. Again we would ask, When were blood and water placed on the Mercy Seat in the type? But one more fact needs to meet our attention. We are speaking of an item of blood that no independent witness has ever seen. Until that blood is produced, silence is golden. The purpose of the Day of Atonement services is plainly stated for our understanding: The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonement. In the great day of final award, the dead are to be “judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” Revelation 20:12. Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven. Thus the sanctuary

145

146

HOLY RELICS

will be freed, or cleansed, from the record of sin. In the type, this great work of atonement, or blotting out of sin, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement—the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted. As in the final atonement the sins of the truly penitent are to be blotted from the records of heaven, no more to be remembered or come into mind. (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 357,358, emphases added)

The above passage of inspiration clearly sets forth that which was symbolized by the “atoning blood” on the Day of Atonement— 1. The Atonement was completed 2. Our already-forgiven sins were blotted out and removed from our minds The claim that the blood fell on the Mercy Seat at the Passover of A.D. 31 would provide indisputable evidence that the atonement was completed at the cross and that our sins were blotted out with Christ’s expiring words, “It is finished”! But a few moments of reflection would wake us up from our musings over such implications. Clearly our sins have not yet been blotted out for they all too readily “come into mind.” Further, the atonement cannot have been completed at the cross for the sins which Christ takes upon Himself as they are removed from the Sanctuary are taken with our High Priest and Placing his hands upon the head of the scapegoat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. (Great Controversy, p. 420)

Thus in the antitypical day of atonement the saints have been cleansed from sin, the Sanctuary has been cleansed of the sins which had polluted it, and Christ finally is divested of the sins He has borne as He transfers them to Satan’s head. Only thus can the universe be cleansed, for with the annihilation of Satan, sin and sinners are forever taken from the universe: What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time. (Nahum 1:9)

Only then can it be stated that: The great controversy is ended. Sin and sinners are no more. The entire universe is clean. One pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation. From Him who created all, flow life and light and gladness, throughout the realms of illimitable space. From the minutest atom to the greatest world, all things, animate and inanimate, in their unshadowed beauty and perfect joy, declare that God is love. (Great Controversy, p. 678)

The Day of Atonement

147

Now it is perfectly plain why blood was never applied to the Mercy Seat at the Passover. That antitypical act of God did not take place at that time. Over 1800 years had yet to pass before the antitype of the autumn festivals commenced. Sins were not blotted out at Calvary nor was the atonement completed. We would do God’s people an injustice if we did not present a defense of the Biblical fact that the blood did not fall upon the Mercy Seat at the Passover. It is only proper that the alternate view be presented. We include the matter in full as interpreted by Jonathan Gray lest in deleting portions we unwittingly do an injustice to the writer: Would the types (symbols) be violated if Jesus’ blood, at the time of the Passover, flowed onto the Mercy Seat of this Ark? It is true that the various feast days all had their own particular significance, representing different prophetic events. Yet they all had one thing in common: sacrifices were made on each of them. The priests shed blood in sacrifices many times. But Jesus did it “ONCE”. [Hebrews 7:27]. The one death of Jesus once and for all embraced within itself the deaths of every sacrifice slain in the entire Hebrew religious year. “Many times” versus “once”: the Scripture tells us that in this detail the ‘type’ or symbol cannot fit; it is ‘not the very image’ of the real event it signified. [Hebrews 10:1] In the symbol, the many sacrifices of lambs, goats and bullocks all prefigured, the ONE sacrifice of ONE Person, the Messiah, ONCE FOR ALL. In the symbol, sacrificial blood was sprinkled on the altar of burnt offering, the altar of incense and also on the Ark of the Covenant’s Mercy Seat. But all these were fulfilled ONCE FOR ALL when Jesus’ blood was sprinkled on just ONE place, ONCE—the Mercy Seat. The time of the year that Jesus’ blood went onto the earthly Mercy Seat is not crucial here. Jesus was not required to spill it on the calendar Day of Atonement. The symbols of the animal that had been shed on all these days of the year, he had to fulfil in ONE act. It says ‘Christ was ONCE offered.’ [Hebrews 9:28] All the detailed prophecies concerning the Saviour’s death had to be accomplished IN THAT ONE ACT. So it is that our High Priest in heaven today can plead our case at the heavenly Mercy Seat by virtue of his blood spilt ONCE on earth. — (Jonathan Gray, Ark of the Covenant, pp. 552,553, all emphasis in the original)

148

HOLY RELICS

Jonathan Gray here rightly emphasizes that every sacrifice in the typical service met its antitype in one antitypical sacrifice. However, he could well have also stated with equal credibility that every typical sprinkling of blood upon the Mercy Seat met its antitype in a single investigative judgment. Just as Christ died once so His Investigative Judgment occurs once. The typical services of the spring and autumn festivals were separated by the widest possible margin—six months—to indicate that the sacrifice (Passover) and the final atonement (day of atonement) did not coincide. To place blood on the Mercy Seat at the inappropriate time of the Passover would demand our acceptance of the New Theology themes which proclaim, contrary to Scripture and the type, that the atonement was completed at the cross, together with the end of the judgment. Gray continues correctly pointing out that: An exact correspondence between the ancient symbol and the reality was not physically possible. (Ibid., p. 553).

This statement is true of both the Spring and the Autumn Feasts. But this fact does not alter the strict segregation of the two festivals for they were prophecies of events separated by over 1800 years of time. To unite the two is to destroy this truth and prepares the way for departure from Seventhday Adventist belief. Over 25 years ago, we faced Dr. Desmond Ford’s teachings that both the atonement and the judgment were completed at the cross. In the decade of the eighties, in Australia and New Zealand, 180 pastors left denominational employment, not a few of these leaving the Seventh-day Adventist church, because of Des Ford’s teachings. Such teachings have been devastating not only in the South Pacific, but on every continent. (Ph.D. Thesis written by Dr. Harry Ballis, Monash University, Melbourne.) It will be noted that Jonathan Gray stated in his defense of blood falling upon the Mercy Seat at the Passover that The time of the year that Jesus’ blood went onto the earthly Mercy Seat is not crucial here (Jonathan Gray, Ark of the Covenant, p. 553).

This is an incredible pronouncement. It implies that God is imprecise in His use of symbols. Who are we, mere mortals, to assert that in the type, God could have selected any time for the sprinkling of Christ’s blood on the Mercy Seat? Such a claim will not sit well with sincere and diligent students of God’s Word. We must recognize that Satan’s deceptions for the faithful are even more subtle and deceptive than for those who are lukewarm. Are we pre-

The Day of Atonement

149

pared to permit him to succeed among the very elect by introducing the same doctrine, albeit by a means which has a populist appeal and which is even associated with soul-winning outreach? We fear that thousands of God’s faithful people have not yet studied this matter thoroughly. There is one further consideration. Paul in his treatment of the type and the antitype in the book of Hebrews always contrasts the ineffectiveness of the type and the efficacy of the antitype. Never does Paul confound the two. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ... It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. (Hebrews 9:13,14,23,24)

The shed blood of Christ, the Antitype, had no significance to the earthly Ark of the Covenant which was merely a shadow of the Ark of the Covenant in heaven. But, unlike the type, the sprinkling of Christ’s blood on the Mercy Seat of the heavenly Ark of the Covenant has eternal power to save every repentant sinner. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is the depository of the sanctuary truth. We must judge whether we are prepared to just as effectively destroy that precious truth by symbols as Dr. Ford attempted to destroy it by direct proclamation. The blood of Christ did not fall upon the Mercy Seat at the crucifixion, for God specifically separated the Spring and Autumn festivals so that no confusion could be held on such matters. God withheld blood from the Mercy Seat at the Spring festival (Passover) for 15 centuries, thus in symbol teaching mankind that the atonement would not be finalized at the cross nor would our sins be blotted out at that time. Nor did God use a mixture of blood and water in His atonement acts. Dear brothers and sisters, those who have withstood the perils of the doctrinal savagery inflicted by the New Theology, who have borne derision for their stand and many of whom have been cast out as unworthy for their rejection of Satan’s destructive errors; will we now in this late hour yield to the subtle wiles of Satan to inject the same course of perilous doctrine into our hearts by a different ploy? In this late hour will we now alter our criteria for truth from the Law and the Testimony to the apparent sin-

150

HOLY RELICS

cerity of the speaker or to the interest generated among non-believers, criteria never designated by God? Are we really prepared to do this? Are we? Are we—when neither we nor anyone else has seen the Ark of the Covenant, the blood claimed to be on the Mercy Seat, the laboratory report, the seven golden candlesticks, the altar of incense, the table of shewbread—prepared to divest the central issues of the sanctuary message for a claim for which not a single piece of evidential material has been produced? Not one! And even if such “evidence” is forthcoming, would you believe your eyes before you believe Scripture? If men are so easily misled now, how will they stand when Satan shall personate Christ and work miracles? Who will be unmoved then by his misrepresentations—professing to be Christ, and apparently working the works of Christ? (Selected Messages Book.2, p. 394) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts (2 Peter 1:19)

This is a serious question. We would urge that God’s people ponder again God’s sole criterion of truth. Please do not pass it over as so well-known and accepted, as to warrant more than a moment’s attention. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20) The Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Great Controversy, p.7, emphasis added)

We suggest that the reader once more read Jonathan’s defense of his assertion that blood fell on the Mercy Seat at the Passover. It will be found that Jonathan speaks only of the sacrifices. There is no doubt that the central act of the Passover was the sacrifice of our Savior. But, in contrast, the central act of the Day of Atonement was the sprinkling of the atoning blood upon the Mercy Seat. It was this act which signified the blotting out of sins and the completion of the atonement. All that Jonathan states concerning the sacrifices, symbolizing Christ’s death, in no-wise alters the fact, unique to the day of atonement, that only on that day was blood placed upon the Mercy Seat—never did such take place at any other time during the year in any other feast day. We repeat, it is the sprinkling of the blood on the heavenly Mercy Seat which occurred uniquely on the Day of Atonement. This point cannot be overemphasized for it is crucial to the proper understanding of the work of

The Day of Atonement

151

Christ as our High Priest. To confuse this matter by the application of blood on the earthly Mercy Seat at the Passover, is to destroy the type. It further destroys the distinctive phases of Christ’s salvation acts for us—His sacrifice on Calvary and His completion of the atonement for us as our High Priest. To confuse these two functions is to imperil our souls. Are any of us then entitled to our own experience if it is at variance with Scripture? Have we a right to broadcast such experiences if they destroy truth? From this statement [Isaiah 8:20] it is evident that it becomes us to be diligent Bible students, that we may know what is according to the law and the testimony (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Vol.7, pp. 951,952). So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except by the Holy Scriptures (Great Controversy, p. 593).

It is crucial that we not neglect to understand that all the events of the Passover were fulfilled on earth. By contrast the sprinkling of blood upon the Mercy Seat was symbolic of God’s work in heaven. It was not the earthly Ark of the Covenant which was foreshadowed in the Day of Atonement services but the heavenly. In his own words, Ron Wyatt demonstrates he does not understand this: So the instant the blood touched the [earthly] Mercy Seat reality had met shadow. Type had met antitype and many of the dead were raised to show that our redemption had taken place (Ron Wyatt, 5-hour video tape supplied to Colin by Jim Pinkoski March 1999).

If this statement were true there is no function for Christ’s High Priestly ministry. Brethren and sisters, you little know just how burdened we feel for God’s flock. We have been silent on this issue too long. This we confess. We have been unfaithful watchmen on the walls of Zion. May God forgive us as we attempt to redress this inexcusable negligence. O how we pray that God’s people will heed His cry: Take heed that no man deceive you. (Matt. 24:4)

Our brothers and sisters in the faith, we urge you to caution; and if this matter of the “discoveries” has not become dear to your hearts, do join us in humbly asking God to protect us from future, even more subtle wiles of Satan, perhaps “evidences” of our eyes and our ears which contradict Scripture. Many who now stand firm when no evidence is produced, will be tempted to digress when their eyes and ears appear to validate unscriptural claims. Heaven requires absolute dependence upon Scripture. This is no

152

HOLY RELICS

time to accept alibis in place of the Word of God. If the “discoveries” have become dear to your heart we urge you to plead with God for His grace and power to give you spiritual discernment in order to re-evaluate them first, in the light of holy Scripture and second, in the light of credible physical evidence.

29 T

The Theology of Twenty-four Chromosomes

he Bible is the standard of truth. The Bible must never be judged by human contentions. Rather must all human concepts be brought to the infallible rule of God’s Word.

The Bible is not to be tested by man’s ideas of science, but science is to be brought to the test of this unerring standard. (Signs of the Times, March 13, 1884)

Even a matter ostensibly belonging to the domain of science, such as the claim that Christ possessed just 24 chromosomes, may and must be measured by the yardstick of Scripture. It may appear surprising to some that the Bible should speak on the issue of chromosomal numbers. Of course, nowhere in Scripture are we informed that normal human beings possess 46 chromosomes. God has given it to mankind to use the talents He has provided in order to delve into the mysteries of His creation. If He had not, man would have possessed no means by which his mind might be developed and expanded. What the Word of God provides in this issue is evidence beyond dispute that Christ possessed the same genetic makeup as do we. Let us examine this fact. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. (Hebrews 2:14)

Now, the very physical fabric of which each one of us is composed is determined by our chromosomes which contain our genes. They are our very being. Often this is only brought to our attention when an individual possesses a defective gene. Such a single gene may be fatal. Even the possession of an additional chromosome is frequently fatal or, as in the case of the 47 genes possessed by individuals with Down’s Syndrome (Mongolism), can cause multiple physical and mental defects. It is true that our characters are determined by our relationship to Christ, but our physical being is largely determined by our chromosomes.

153

154

HOLY RELICS

Scripture, in terms that permit but one interpretation, states that Christ possessed the same flesh and blood as “the children.” Who are these “children”? We are they! Let us notice Paul’s presentation. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Hebrews 2:9)

Our Savior died for “every man.” As we pursue this theme Paul refers to those who accept Christ’s sacrifice as His “sons”; that is, His children. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. (Hebrews 2:10)

Thus we should not be surprised that Christ refers to these “sons” as His “children.” And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. (Hebrews 2:13)

Christ therefore possessed the same flesh and blood as we—fallen human nature, for thus are we. This is why He claims us as one with Him and refers to us as His brethren. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. (Hebrews 2:11,12)

The Scripture is so clear on this matter that none need doubt that He possessed the same flesh and blood as fallen human beings. Just for a moment let us stop to consider the theological implications if Christ were to possess 22 less chromosomes than we. Could He then truly be our Example? Of course not! He would be so different from us on the human level in such a major feature of our very being that we would have a full right to reject Him as our Example. Yet Scripture, in words which cannot be seen to possess two possible meanings, emphatically states that He is our Example. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps. (1 Peter 2:21)

If Christ possessed a deficit of 22 chromosomes, many would excuse their failure to resist temptation on the grounds that Christ’s possession of less fallen chromosomes than we inherit provided Him with a distinct advantage. Who knows how such an advantage would have aided His battle with temptation? And remember that it was in the matter of resisting tempta-

The Theology of Twenty-four Chromosomes

155

tion to sin, through the power of the Holy Spirit, that Christ was our Example. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:21,22)

If Christ inherited only 24 chromosomes surely it could not be claimed that He was tempted in all points in the same manner as we are. Yet this is precisely what the Bible declares. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

It must not be forgotten that the Scriptural dictum that Christ is our Example is not asserted simply to present to us an unattainable goal. We note that Christ’s character, as set forth in 1 Peter 2:21,22 above was summarized by two features. 1. He did no sin. 2. There was no guile in His mouth. Those who are saved at the end of time, the individuals who receive the seal of the Living God, are described in the book of Revelation as the 144,000. And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand. (Revelation 7:2–4)

This same group is again mentioned in Revelation 14. They are there described as redeemed in heaven. And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: and they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed

156

HOLY RELICS

from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. (Revelation 14:1–4)

The Scripture describes the characters of these redeemed souls. It will be observed that they possess the identical features of character as did their Example upon earth. Only those who have overcome sin are faultless before God’s throne. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God. (Revelation 14:5)

A Scriptural synonym for the 144,000 is the remnant. And the dragon [Satan—see Revelation 12:9; 20:2] was wroth with the woman [God’s church], and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 12:17)

We would expect that the remnant if they are synonymous with the 144,000 would also be devoid of guile—deceit and falsehood—and have overcome sin. To this fact Scripture testifies. The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid (Zephaniah 3:13)

Heaven depends upon God’s children so submitting themselves to the power of the Holy Spirit that they will emulate Christ’s character. Only then can they be said to possess the Father’s name. And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. (Revelation 14:1)

The purpose of Christ’s life of 33 years upon this earth was not only that He could train His disciples, for this He accomplished in three and one-half years. It was not so that He could die for our sins and be resurrected, for this He, in the greatest act of love for us, accomplished in three days. Christ spent 33 years on this earth so that He could be our Example as a child, teenager and adult. Had Christ possessed a human nature different from ours He could in nowise have been our Example. He even accepted our fallen genetic natures. To this fact Scripture clearly testifies. Thus He qualified as our Example in the fullest sense. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Romans 1:3) For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Hebrews 2:16)

The Theology of Twenty-four Chromosomes

157

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (Romans 8:3)

Those who would interpret the word likeness in the last text to mean the very opposite, unlikeness, little understand the precision with which that word is used in the Greek of the New Testament. Paul in his letter to the Christians in Philippi surely demonstrated His use of the word likeness. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:7)

Christ came as a man, not a make-believe man. Only thus could Christ be “made flesh” (John 1:14). So significant was Christ’s human nature while on earth that the Bible emphasizes that Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:17, emphasis added)

If Christ possessed a mere 24 chromosomes He most assuredly was not made like unto us in all things. In the incarnation God left mankind no excuse to continue a course of sin. Christ thoroughly demonstrated that a truly committed Christian, filled with the love and power of the Holy Spirit, could keep every one of God’s commandments. This is the work wrought through the new birth experience. If this were not so Christ could not have informed us that the evidence of our love for Him is obedience to His commandments. If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

Those who disregard this principle imperil their salvation, for speaking of the redeemed we are informed, Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. (Revelation 14:12)

In his first epistle, the apostle John confirmed the requirement to obey the commandments. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. (1 John 2:3–6)

158

HOLY RELICS

It is God’s will that we overcome sin, and we must. If along the Christian pathway we are once more beguiled by Satan’s temptations our loving God offers restoration. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1)

The word “sin” would possess no meaning if the moral law had been discarded at the cross, for Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

Christ as our Example is set forth plainly in the same chapter. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:5–10)

Let it be understood that each one of these passages of the Holy Scriptures was written decades after Calvary. For 30 years prior to His baptism and the commencement of His ministry our Savior demonstrated that a man “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3) could, in the strength of the Holy Spirit, resist temptation.

30

Christ’s Human Nature— the Central Issue of the Gospel

hrist’s human nature is the central issue of the gospel. To degrade Him to a man possessed of a mere 24 chromosomes is to deny His right to be our Example. In what manner was Christ’s human nature crucial to the plan of salvation? First, it was necessary that Christ possessed fallen genetic nature in that no being with an unfallen nature has ever died. The very death of Christ, so central to our salvation, necessitated that He possess the only nature that can die—a fallen nature. Listen to the following words.

C

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14, emphasis added)

Manifestly Christ was required to possess the same flesh and blood as humanity in order to undertake the sacrificial atonement for us. It will also be noted that, for reasons we may only fully comprehend in heaven, Christ’s fallen humanity was essential to the eradication of sin from the universe. This will be accomplished when Satan and his followers are destroyed. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, God and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. (Revelation 20:7–9)

Speaking of the destruction of Satan, formerly the covering cherub, after the millennium (thousand years), the prophet Ezekiel states, Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways

159

160

HOLY RELICS

from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more (Ezekiel 28:14–19)

At that time will harmony once more reign throughout the universe, never again to be disrupted. Thus the prophet Nahum could assure us that What do ye imagine against the Lord? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time. (Nahum 1:9)

A third gospel issue dependent upon Christ’s possession of the same flesh and blood as us is our own personal salvation. Before we turned to Christ we were held in fearful bondage to the devil. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Hebrews 2:15)

Praise God, He came in our flesh that He could provide us with an Example of a perfect character. The High Priestly ministry of Christ receives little attention today in Christian circles. Yet the epistle to the Hebrews majors on this subject. It is crucial to our salvation. Yet Christ could only serve as the heavenly High Priest of the order of Melchizedek (Spelled Melchisedec in the New Testament) if He was made like unto us in all things. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:17)

We require Christ as our Sacrifice (Hebrews 10:12), our High Priest (Hebrews 9:11), our Judge (John 5:22), our Advocate (1 John 2:1), our Intercessor (Hebrews 7:25) and our Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). Without this High Priestly ministry, Christ’s death for our sins alone could not suffice. It was mandatory that Christ be resurrected in order that He could be our

Christ’s Human Nature—The Central Issue

161

High Priest else we could never receive salvation even if we died in Christ. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. (1 Corinthians 15:17,18)

Thus the commonly held Christian view that our salvation was completed at the cross is manifestly erroneous. If all was completed at the cross Christ’s resurrection would be irrelevant to our salvation. Christ had to be resurrected in order to complete the High Priestly ministry of atonement where the antitype of the placing of the blood on the Mercy Seat (Leviticus 16:15,16) is performed in the heavenly Most Holy Place. To deny that Christ was in “all things” “made like unto His brethren” (Hebrews 2:17) as does the totally unverified claim that Christ’s blood possessed only 24 chromosomes, is to destroy Christ’s right to be our High Priest. Well we may ask, How can we have victory over sin? It is only in having a God who humiliated Himself in order that He could endure what we endure in the realm of temptation, and thus can strengthen us to resist our inherited and cultivated tendencies to evil. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)

In summary we would state that Christ did not come to this earth as a genetic freak. As such He could not have atoned for our sins nor completed the plan of salvation. Five central salvation issues are recorded in Hebrews chapter 2 as being dependent upon Christ possessing the same flesh and blood as us and being made like unto us in all things. These are— 1. Christ’s death on Calvary. 2. The cleansing of the universe of sin and sinners for ever. 3. The salvation of all believers. 4. Christ’s High Priestly ministry in heaven. 5. Victory over sin in the life of the believer in order that he/she receive the character of Christ. No doubt in heaven we will study many more aspects of our salvation which were dependent upon Christ possessing a human genetic nature such as ours. Let it never be overlooked that Christ’s character was ever perfect, but His genetic nature was fallen. This, as we have seen, is the plain testimony of Scripture. In all this let us not forget that Christ, although fully human on earth, is the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the highest appellations of the Godhead.

162

HOLY RELICS

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Christ’s deity was veiled while on earth. Nevertheless we must never make him one like us. Yes His humanity was the same as ours, but He was still very God. How we look forward to eternity when we will, under the tutelage of our Savior, unravel some of the infinite mysteries of the incarnation. In the intervening period may none of us demean our Lord’s humanity by accepting that He possessed only 24 chromosomes when no tests have ever demonstrated such a fact. Let us not destroy Christ’s mighty salvation acts in this manner. In Australia many who have accepted the unsubstantiated claim that Christ’s blood contains a mere 24 chromosomes, have also accepted the false doctrine that Christ has not existed from eternity with the Father, having in some manner been propagated from the Father at some distant point in time past. This tenet denies Christ’s eternal existence. Note that Isaiah 9:6 designates Him as the Everlasting Father. Further, But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (Micah 5:2).

Thus is developing a body of beliefs which degrade Christ’s deity, on the one hand, and his humanity on the other. The christ thus presented is neither truly God nor truly man. Such dogma greatly diminishes Christ’s atonement, His substitutionary sacrifice, His role as our Example and His High Priestly ministry for us. We reject such a christ. We uphold the Biblical Christ who is both the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father and the Son of man. Only such a One could provide propitiation for our sins.

31 T

The Chariot Wheels

Biblical record of the destruction of Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea consists of four stages. Stage 1: Pharaoh’s army followed Israel into the dry sea bed. HE

And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. (Exodus 14:23)

Stage 2: God took the wheels off the chariots in the sea bed and the Egyptians decided to flee. No doubt this intention was thwarted by the loss of the chariot wheels and the promptness of stage 3. And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, and took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians. (Exodus 14:24,25)

Stage 3: The destruction of the army. And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. (Exodus 14:26,27)

Stage 4: The bodies of the Egyptians were washed upon the sea shore. Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. (Exodus 14:30)

It is worthy of remark that the Bible makes no mention of either the horses or the chariots being washed ashore. Helpfully, Moses in his final exhortations to the Israelites did inform us of the final fate of the horses and the chariots—they were buried at sea. They were not washed up on the shore.

163

164

HOLY RELICS

And what he did unto the army of Egypt, unto their horses, and to their chariots; how he made the water of the Red Sea to overflow them as they pursued after you and how the LORD hath destroyed them unto this day. (Deuteronomy 11:4)

In the book of Exodus we are informed that “they” sank as lead. Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters. (Exodus 15:10)

Clearly this is not describing the bodies of the soldiers for, as we have seen, many of them were washed up on the shore. No doubt this refers to the horses and the chariots. Why were the soldiers washed ashore and the horses and the chariots left in the midst of the sea? The horses undoubtedly were attached to the chariots. If the chariots were made of metal or even partially of metal, their weight no doubt accounted for them falling like lead. Since the Egyptians were aware that the Israelites were unarmed, no doubt few of the soldiers added the unnecessary weight of armor to their persons, especially as they were in hot pursuit. Ron Wyatt believes that he has discovered the chariot wheels which fell off the chariots. Ron Wyatt and his sons discovered wheels with four, six, and eight spokes ... Apparently eight-spoked wheels were only used during the 18th Dynasty. (International Discovery Times, Melbourne 1998, p. 4)

Once again there is a paucity of evidence provided. This claim requires documentation. We do not deny this matter, but it is one of a string of statements for which the reader is expected to accept Ron Wyatt’s word. Let us examine details concerning the “bridge crossing” from the western to the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba, where Ron Wyatt claims that he discovered the route taken by the children of Israel as they crossed on dry land. This “bridge” is said to run from Nuweiba, a beach on the western side of the Gulf of Aqaba Peninsula to the eastern bank of the Gulf in Saudi Arabia. The “bridge” is said to be about 900 meters (2925 ft) wide. At its deepest point the “bridge” is claimed to be about 300 meters (1000 ft) below sea level. In a lecture presented by Jonathan Gray in England around 1995 he produced one piece of documentation in support of the “presence” of the “bridge.” Jonathan stated that the undersea bridge which is claimed to exist under the Gulf of Aqaba appears on British Admiralty [Department of the Navy] charts (Letter Roger Rose to Pastor Lawrence Nelson dated March 29, 1996).

The Chariot Wheels

165

If this can be confirmed then it would be valuable evidence that such a “bridge” does exist, for the British Admiralty is renowned for the accuracy of its soundings of ocean depths. In 1995 the Hydrographic Office of the British Department of Defense was approached on this matter. The following reply was received: There is no evidence in the Hydrographic Office of a “bridge” crossing the Gulf of Aqaba. This has been confirmed by checking back through the records from the original chart dated in 1836 to the present day. (Letter written by Douglas Huckle, Nautical Chart Branch of the Royal Navy to Roger Rose, 17th Aug., 1995)

This reply certainly did not confirm Jonathan Gray’s documentation which depended on the charts of the British Admiralty (the Department of the Navy). Since, as we will document, by international agreement the British Admiralty is the official authority for charting the Red Sea, this was a serious error in Jonathan Gray’s evidence. Of course there are always those who resort to conspiracy theories in order to plaster over such flaws. We were told by one adherent to the discoveries that the British Admiralty, being composed of Biblical doubters, naturally would not desire to confirm such an important “evidence” of Biblical accuracy. Let us be rational in this matter. First, the individual had not verified his assertion that the British Admiralty was staffed by Biblical doubters. Further, even if this guesswork proved to be correct and even if, in addition, these men were liars who falsified their replies in the face of contrary facts, clearly evidenced on their charts, that would not excuse Jonathan from citing them as his authority for the documentation of the “bridge” across the Gulf of Aqaba. Make no mistake, if such evidence did exist on any of the Admiralty maps, these men would not desire to expose themselves to the charge of ignorance by those who could prove that such charts existed. Less than a month later, Sister Healy of Suffolk received a reply from the Hydrographic Office on the same subject. She had sent the office a copy of the video “Surprising Discoveries 2” in which the subject of the “bridge” was discussed and the “evidence” of the British Admiralty Chart was cited. Clearly the officers of the Department studied the videotape carefully. Their reply follows. As you suggested the whole video is most interesting but we directed our attention particularly to the part concerning the crossing of the Red Sea. After careful scrutiny of the video we wish to make the following observations:

166

HOLY RELICS

1.

The Chart held by Mr. Gray.

This chart is not a British Admiralty Chart. By using a high quality video player we were able to view the video frame by frame and we have positively identified the chart as a portion of United States chart number 62220, scale 1:150,000. The latest edition of this chart was published in March 1993 and a photocopy of the relevant portion is enclosed for your interest. I have also enclosed portions of the current British Admiralty chart, number 8, scale 1:300,000 published in 1994 and the previous chart of this area, number 756, scale 1:308,250, published in 1952. By international agreement the UK Hydrographic Office is the authority for charting the Red Sea and the American chart is in fact a reproduction of the Admiralty chart albeit at twice the scale. The depths, which are in meters on both the US and BA charts, are virtually the same although the American chart has some typographical errors e.g. a depth of 790 meters instead of 799. 2.

Bathometry.

Mr. Gray’s statement that there are “great depths” either side of the site of the “Sand Bridge” is misleading. The greatest depth in the whole of Gulf of Aqaba is approximately 1800m [5850 feet] and lies 10 miles to the south of the site in an area known as the Aragonese Deep. Ten miles to the north depths reach a maximum of 950m in the Elat Deep. Depths along the suggested route of the bridge reach a maximum of 850m (2800 feet) and not the stated 300m (1000ft). Contrary to Mr. Gray’s statement, the “Sand Bridge” is not now, and never has been a recognizable feature on British Admiralty charts. Nor is it recognizable on the US chart held by Mr. Gray. 3.

Diving Activities.

The diving equipment seen in the video is clearly self-contained underwater breathing equipment i.e. compressed air. The world record depth achieved using this equipment, under controlled conditions, is 133m (437 ft). Mr. Gray talks of diving 1½ [2½ kilometers] miles off shore. This would mean diving in depths in excess of 150m. If, as it is claimed, Ron dived to depths of 60m (200 ft) then this must have been done within half a mile of the coast. The Gulf of Aqaba is some ten miles [16 kilometers] wide at this point, approximately seven miles of this distance is deeper than 300m, or to put it another way, below the depth to which light rays can reach. This makes it difficult to accept that the naturally lit scenes of the

The Chariot Wheels

167

seabed, particularly those taken by the remote camera, were of “the sand Bridge on the bottom of the Red Sea.” In addition to the portions of charts mentioned above I am also enclosing part of a Geological Map of Israel showing bathometric contours in meters and a copy of the only known survey of Nuweiba, dated 1896. You will note that even on this sketch survey the depths half a mile off shore are approximately 70-80m. (Letter written by Kenneth Arthurton, Curator, Hydrographic Office of the British Department of Defense to Mrs. M. Healy, 8 Sept., 1995).

Let us spend a few moments examining this interesting letter. The fact that the chart displayed by Jonathan was an American copy of a British Admiralty chart and that it contains one inconsequential error, bears no significance on this discussion. For a second time it has been stated by a different officer of the Admiralty that contrary to Mr. Gray’s statement, the “Sand Bridge” is not now, and never has been, a recognizable feature on British Admiralty charts. Nor is it recognizable on the US chart held by Mr. Gray. (Ibid)

This is a significant denial in view of Jonathan Gray’s use of this very material as documentation designed to convince the public of the authenticity of the “bridge.”

32 O

Further Challenges to the Underwater Bridge

NE man challenged Jonathan with the statements of the Hydrographic

Office. His report bears record. Mr. Rose had served for over 20 years as an Officer for Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, the British Government’s printing office in Norwich. He had contact with the Hydrographic Office in Taunton during the course of his work. It is this office which is responsible for the production of all British Admiralty charts. Mr. Rose reports his conversation regarding these matters with Jonathan Gray as follows: Since this information came to light before Mr. Gray’s visit to England we made the decision that we could not support his meetings. However, we did attend a meeting held in our area and after the meeting we attempted to get some clarification about the lack of evidence of an underwater bridge on the Charts. Mr. Gray was not at all anxious to speak with us on the subject, and when questioned closely all he could do was to cast doubt on the validity of the charts, saying that “these men who just sit in offices drawing maps in England—what do they know? I’ve been out there and dived and seen it all for myself”—or words to that effect. (Letter written by Roger Rose to Pastor Lawrence Nelson, 29 March, 1996).

We first met Roger Rose more than 15 years ago. Since that date (1984) we have met with him on many occasions in England and also in various countries of Europe and Asia. Prior to joining Her Majesty’s Printing Office, Roger was a denominational missionary in Ghana. He is a man who thinks well before he speaks or commits anything to paper lest he in the least misrepresent that which he is discussing. Thus this testimony is the work of a man whose hallmark is caution. We note that the very authority which Jonathan publicly acknowledged—the British Admiralty—he later discredited when confronted with documentary evidence of their denials. Yet is was he who claimed the office as authority for his claims.

168

Further Challenges to the Underwater Bridge

169

It is also true that Jonathan Gray has been out there (at the Gulf of Aqaba) himself. But let it not be forgotten that the British Navy has been plying the Gulf since at least 1832 and, using the most sophisticated sounding equipment, has constructed charts so accurate that international maritime authorities have placed their faith in their charts. The safety of nautical navigation depends largely upon the accuracy of these charts. Mr. Rose investigated the alibis which were proffered in order to sustain the theory of “the bridge” despite contrary evidence from the British Admiralty. Once more we would emphasize that even if these alibis proved correct this could in no wise excuse the use of the British Admiralty charts as evidence for the presence of that which they have never maintained, much less included in their charts. But as is usual when face-saving theories are substituted for fact, it is quite obvious that those offering these suggestions, in order to sustain that which is not confirmed, have a deficiency in their knowledge of the subject—in this case the technique of making detailed measurements of sea beds. Various counterclaims have now been made to discredit the Admiralty Charts, one being that the charts are not to a large enough scale to show the “bridge.” In that case why were the Charts quoted as supporting evidence in the first place? Another assertion is that the depth soundings are only taken at intervals, and that the “bridge” could therefore have been “missed.” I am assured by my telephone conversations with the Hydrographic Office that this could not be the case—these depth-sounding devices on the ships are continuously recording the depth of the sea bed. When the information is processed for use in producing Charts, it is obvious that only a relatively small amount of data can be used, and therefore the computers are set to give the shallowest depths in a given area. So the depths on the chart of the Gulf of Aqaba in the 29EN area are the shallowest there are in that region. In the deepest areas where the “bridge” is claimed to be the Chart shows the depths to be over 700m [in fact it is 850m], whereas Mr. Gray claims depths no greater than 300m for the whole length of this “bridge.” (Ibid.)

The matters raised in section 3 of the Hydrographic Office letter, “Diving Activities,” are discussed in the chapter entitled “The British Admiralty Charting Procedures.” We now direct our attention to yet another letter from the Hydrographic Office. Mr. B.L. Davies of Wales had posed some questions and these were answered by another officer of the Hydrographic office. We quote Helen Breeze’s answers in full.

170

HOLY RELICS

1.

Are all sea depths in fathoms or is it all metric now?

Depths on Admiralty and other charts are measured in feet or fathoms or metres depending on the age of the chart. Modern charts show depths in metres. 2.

Please find enclosed an extract of Admiralty chart 756 (D5).

3. Also enclosed is an extract of the Geological Survey of Israel Map (our reference K8678/3). 4. The 850 metres along the suggested route of the bridge is taken from the Geological survey of Israel Map. 5. Depths along the crossing route are extracted from passage soundings. These are continuous lines of soundings; those shown on the chart are a selection to show the general shape of the sea bottom. The deeper soundings here are from passage soundings by HMS Herald (a surveying vessel), dated 1981, and Aragonese, dated 1964. This original source data is held in the Archives. 6. The two Deeps, Elat to the north and Aragonese to the south of the crossing point. You are correct to say that for 2 deeps to exist clearly implies that there is a higher level in between, and your diagram shows this.

In the appendix is a construction of a cross-section across the two deeps on graph paper using the depth contours on the Geological Survey of Israel Map of the area. (See Exhibit I, pg. 173) Let us study this most interesting letter. We summarize significant facts set forth in the letter. 1. The Designated Crossing Point. The point designated by Ron Wyatt is at its lowest point 850 meters (2,760 feet) below sea level. Ron Wyatt in his conversation with Russell, September 30, 1998, in Melbourne stated that the correct depth is between 200 and 300 feet (between 60 and 90 meters). This is an extraordinary discrepancy. Ron Wyatt stated that the soundings of British ships were distorted by strong currents which swept the sounding devices away and thus caused the British to grossly over-estimate the depth. Ron claimed that recent satellite techniques have confirmed his much lower figures. We have, as yet, received none of the promised evidence of this. This is no doubt because Ron’s claim concerning satellite measurements is incorrect. (See chapter entitled “British Admiralty Charting Procedures.”)

Further Challenges to the Underwater Bridge 2.

171

The “crossing point” is 15 kilometers (9½ miles) wide. Jonathan Gray claims a “bridge” 900 meters (2925 feet—a little over half a mile) wide. Once again the great discrepancy of width of the “bridge” does not fill with confidence, those in search of evidence. 3. A view of the cross-section of the region demonstrates that the Aragonese Deep is indeed a deep in relation to the “crossing point.” But the Elat Deep is a rather gentle gradient over almost 20 kilometers (12½ miles), an average decline of a mere 5 meters (16 feet) per kilometer which equals 8 meters (26 feet) per mile. Such a gradient scarcely measures up to the 900 meter “bridge” with sharp depths on both sides. These three observations cast grave doubt upon this salient detail of the claimed Red Sea Crossing. Further, Ron Wyatt’s suggestion is that the equipment used in sounding the depth of the sea bed is of such a nature that tides could cause the readings to be absolutely worthless. Imagine the perils of the sea if such factors distorted to the extent that 60 to 90 meters were measured as 850 meters! It would be folly to bother to take such soundings. Russell did not closely question Ron Wyatt on his knowledge of how ocean depths are measured, but the claim that the equipment used could be swept away by ocean tides is clearly false. Depths are not determined by a piece of equipment dangling from a boat and being lowered until it hits the sea floor, at which time the depth can be ascertained. Such a crude method could be easily subject to gross inaccuracies. Of course the British Admiralty charts are most certainly not based upon such “mediaeval” technology. Their survey ships use the latest, most sophisticated methods of determining depths of the ocean floor. The present technology utilizes echo equipment. Such soundings are not influenced by tides and possess an extremely high level of accuracy. As a matter of fact, tides play little role in the movements of the waters of the Gulf of Aqaba. Ron Wyatt informed Russell that the latest depths were measured by satellites. It is difficult to see how such measurements from satellites would surpass the accuracy of a vessel sailing the Gulf and using echo devices. (See chapter entitled “British Admiralty Charting Procedures.”) Paul Hoskin, Research Associate in Geology at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand presents a matter on the internet, which is worthy of further exploration and consideration. He attended Ron Wyatt’s Christchurch, New Zealand, meeting on October 6, 1998.

172

HOLY RELICS

And then there is his evidence for the Exodus and the Israeli camp at Sinai. Supposed Egyptian chariot wheels are shown on video. Although, we never see enough to gauge scale or context. We are told that the wheels lie in a water depth of 20 meters [65 feet] or more, yet the images show swashing and loose sediment, and wave-shadows on the sediment surface. I have been told by professional divers (in confirmation of my suspicions) that wave-shadows will not be observed at a water depth of 20 meters. Moreover, it is pure speculation in the absence of samples that chariot wheels exist under the mass of barnacles and marine-life. Also, the amount of loose and moving sediment around one chariot wheel (supposedly made of gold, although no sample or analysis is provided) begs the question. “Why hasn’t it been well buried under meters of sediment over the past few thousand years?”

Hoskin’s final question concerning the meters of sediment is not relevant to the Gulf of Aqaba location as sediment is very scarce in this area because of the lack of rain in the region. This leads to negligible run-off from the land into the sea. His other observations however are worthy of evaluation.

Further Challenges to the Underwater Bridge

173

EXHIBIT I. The fax to Remnant Ministries on Admiralty letterhead. 22//07/99

10:11

REMNANT MINISTRIES 03 97511648 - 5406723107

003

Below is a construction of a cross-section across the two deeps on graph paper using the depth contours on the Geological Survey of Israel map of the area. Close examination of the contour depths shows that:- Elat Deep is about 950 metres - the highest point of the crossing is 850 metres - Aragonese Deep is 1800 metres deep - The distance across the ridge between the two deeps is about 15 Kilometres Metres 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 -

Crossing point

Elat Deep

Aragonese Deep

20 km

I trust that your questions relating to Mr. Atherton’s letter have been answered to your satisfaction. I am sure that the debate will continue, however, though the subject is interesting, regrettably we are unable to allocate further resources to this subject as we have now provided all the information we hold, but please feel free to inform us of your progress. /S/ Helen Breeze Hydrographic Data Centre

ADMIRALTY

33

The British Admiralty Charting Procedures

HE next question which we need to address is the technique used in sounding the depth of the Gulf of Aqaba. As already noted, Ron Wyatt in his conversation with Russell September 30, 1998 claimed that the British Admiralty charts were grossly inaccurate and based upon faulty soundings due to the strong tides in the Gulf. He claimed that Satellite measurements had corrected the depth of the area which he claimed the Israelites traversed, from 850 meters (2700 feet) to a maximum of 90 meters (about 300 feet). Each piece of this information is quite incorrect. We summarize the evidence upon which we base this conclusion: 1. The Hydrographic Department does not use sounding techniques which are distorted by strong tides or currents. In ages past, navigators used lead lines in order to plumb the depths over which they sailed. These mariners, of course, were not bent on mapping the ocean floors. Their sole aim was to ensure that the waters they traversed were of sufficient depth that their vessels did not founder on some rocky, coral or sandy outcrop. 2. The method now utilized employs the use of echo technology. This technology has a margin of error of 2 per cent. This means that the depth of 850 meters recorded where the Wyatt claim of the Red Sea crossing is located, is accurate within the limits of 833—867 meters. If Ron Wyatt’s contention that the true depth is a mere 90 meters at the most then the margin of error would be close to 90 per cent and thus render echo sounding totally valueless. 3. The British Admiralty by International agreement is the sole surveyor of the seabed of the Gulf of Aqaba. The most recent British Admiralty chart of the Gulf of Aqaba was published in June 1999. It is designated No. 8. It does not contain any evidence of a sand bridge of the type claimed by Ron Wyatt, for none exists.

T

174

The British Admiralty Charting Procedures 4.

5.

6.

175

Surveys of the ocean floor are not undertaken by use of intermittent soundings. The soundings are continuous throughout the length of the Gulf and are continuously recorded. Indeed, the Hydrographic office of the British Department of Defense informed Roger Rose (Feb. 2, 1999) and Russell (Feb. 3, 1999) that H.M.S. Beagle, the survey ship, had undertaken such a continuous survey travelling the entire Gulf from south to north commencing January 28, 1998 and that it had left the port of Aqaba at the northern extremity of the Gulf to undertake a further continuous sounding February 1, 1999 as it traveled south and thence to the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean. (Information supplied per telephone from Mr. Adrian Halliwell, the Departmental Officer responsible for the production of charts of the Red Sea region). Mr. Brian Parrish, an officer of the Satellite Branch of the Hydrographic Office, in telephone conversation with Roger Rose, February 2, 1999, stated quite categorically that satellite recordings are not used in place of echo soundings. Thus Ron Wyatt’s claim that satellite recordings were more accurate than naval soundings is quite erroneous. Since the British Hydrographic Office bears the sole responsibility for charting the Gulf of Aqaba, Ron could not have obtained that information from another source. Ron did promise Russell that he would Fax him documentation of his claim in this matter, but almost one year later, at the time of this book going to press, Russell has not yet received Ron Wyatt’s promised evidence. The British Hydrographic Office supplies its sounding information to the International Hydrographic Organization with headquarters in Monaco. This organization feeds the information to a central processing unit located in Boulder, Colorado. Two commercial satellites supply information to the Hydrographic Department—SPOT (France) and LANDSAT (United States). Two different techniques are utilized: (a) An electro-optical system, which can only image the sea to a maximum of 30 meters. Thus it would serve no good purpose in the determination of seabed soundings. (b) A synthetic aperture radar technique. This scans the surface of the sea which reflects major ridges, but only if there is a good tide. It is especially sensitive when there is a rip-tide.

176

HOLY RELICS

7.

Unlike Ron Wyatt’s claims, the Gulf of Aqaba is a very calm seaway. It is not prone to large tides and strong currents. Indeed, recorded facts show quite the opposite. The average difference between high and low tide is 1–1.2 meters. By way of comparison, the Bristol Channel lying between South Wales and the English counties of Devon and Cornwall, has a tide of 22 meters. 8. The commander of the H.M.S. Beagle was briefed on the claims of Ron Wyatt when they gained a level of credence in Britain. He took the matter seriously, but his soundings have simply confirmed the former charts which date back to 1832 and demonstrate no “bridge” in the region. 9. The Israelis have done no significant charting of the Gulf except at its southern-most point across the Strait of Tiran. This region is far south of the proposed crossing of the Israelites and is therefore irrelevant to the matter under discussion. We must thus draw the conclusion that Ron Wyatt’s reference to the use of satellite soundings, the influences of the tides and currents upon the sounding procedures and his claim to have discovered a “bridge” are quite unfounded. Mr. Parish, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Manager of the British Hydrographic Office, recorded his information in a Faxed letter dated 5 February, 1999 sent to Roger Rose. We reproduce this letter in full for documentary reference: To the best of my knowledge there is no commercially available remote sensing system capable of imaging the sea bed at depths in excess of approximately 30 meters. I say approximately because it is considerably more difficult to measure the depth of the water than to simply see through it. Electro-optical systems which have been around for over 25 years (SPOT 7 LANDSAT primarily) capture the reflected radiance from the sun. As such it is water clarity, sun angle and the nature of the sea bed which determine the depth penetration perceived on this kind of imagery. Synthetic Aperture Radar is a more recent technique in which, given particular surface wind and tidal movement, the topology of the sea bed can be inferred from the sea surface roughness recorded by the sensor. This is a much less mature technique but theoretically less limited in terms of water depth. Large features have been discovered at considerable depths in the middle of oceans.

The British Admiralty Charting Procedures

177

Neither technique however can be applied to surveying without some ground truth data with which to calibrate the imagery. Source data diagrams are included on Admiralty charts specifically to allow the user to make informed navigational decisions. Old lead line surveys represent point data which may be poorly controlled by today’s standards. This means isolated pinnacles may not have been found and soundings which were recorded do however represent accurate depths at that time and do give a good impression of the general depth over large areas. Unless there is good reason to suspect that marine dynamics have markedly changed the environment this information can be considered valid.

It will be observed that even the recent synthetic Aperture Radar, while possessing the capability of inferring large topological changes along the sea-bed, is not useful, alone, in determining precise depth.

178

HOLY RELICS

34

Bones and Wood

T HAS been claimed that Ron Wyatt has discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba ... a trail of “chariot litter” [which] matches events as described in the Bible. The first artifacts found are wheels, followed some distance further by chariot bodies as well as human and horse bones (International Discovery Times, 1999 p.4). Speaking of the wood in the wheels we learn that it

I

... is badly deteriorated, making them [the wheels] too fragile to recover without specialized equipment (Ibid).

Let it not be forgotten that here spoken of are artifacts of almost 3500 years old. That is an enormous time to lie under water. Most wood would have disappeared in such a period of time. But let us examine the assertion that bones have survived for this period of time. On April 14, 1912, at 11.40pm the “unsinkable” liner, the Titanic, sideglanced an iceberg. At 2.20am April 15, 1912, the massive vessel had sunk below the surface and was sinking to its final resting place, two and a half miles (4 kilometers) below. Of the 2224 passengers and crew aboard, 1533 were lost. Despite the fact that the life-boats on board had a capacity far less than that of the number of passengers and crew, there were still sufficient life-boat seats so that only 1146 should have been lost. In 1985 an underwater expedition led by Dr. Robert D. Ballard of the American Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Jean-Louis Michel of France’s IFREMER located the wreck of the 46,000 tons White Star liner. They used an especially designed, remotely-controlled deep sea video vehicle equipped with two sonar systems and five television cameras that could transmit images to the boat from the seabed. A year later the American team returned and launched a manned submarine over the site of the wreck, about 160 kilometers (95 miles) south of Grand Banks, Newfoundland, Canada. As a result of these expeditions, much is known of the wreck. Some of their discoveries are relevant to Ron Wyatt’s claims concerning the discov-

178

Bones and Wood

179

ery of the bones and certain details relating to the wooden objects said to have been discovered. Seventy-three years after the sinking of the Trans-Atlantic liner on its maiden voyage, diligent efforts were made to find the human remains of those who perished in the ship. Over 53,000 photographs were taken both outside and within the sunken vessel. Perhaps the most heart-rending photograph is one which depicted two matching men’s shoes once belonging to the body of a man who perished in the disaster. They are lying just as they were when his lifeless feet occupied them. The comment below the photograph is enlightening: “Did you see any bodies?” is one of the questions asked most often of those who took part in the 1986 Titanic expedition. Although any human remains have long since disappeared, many poignant relics such as this pair of shoes lying side by side where a body once lay are strong reminders that the Titanic wreck is indeed a gravesite, one which I have long believed should be left undisturbed. Subsequent salvage attempts have altered the wreck site irrevocably and damaged the ship’s hull. Our 1986 visit proved that images like this one are far more compelling than the odd artifact removed from its emotional and historical context. (Dr. Robert D. Ballard, The Discovery of the Titanic, Orion Publishing, 1996. Photograph opposite p.193)

Dr. Ballard in his book furnishes more interesting details concerning the search for skeletons. These details are relevant in our quest to confirm Ron Wyatt’s claims in respect of the Gulf of Aqaba Crossing Site and the artifacts said to be found. Dr. Ballard records, The deep ocean is a quiet and relatively stable place. After the Titanic’s tumultuous final hours she found herself at a depth of 12,460 feet in an environment where most changes happen over decades rather than days. First to disappear would have been any soft organic material such as food or bodies—the flesh and bones rapidly devoured by bottom-feeding fish and crustaceans (any bones they missed would soon have been dissolved by the salt water). Clothing would have taken much longer, probably years. In some cases leather shoes have survived, sitting side by side where once a body rested. Perhaps the chemicals used in the shoe-tanning processes are unappetizing to bacteria. (Ibid p.260)

Here is documented the fact that 73 years after the loss of the Titanic not one human bodily remain from over 1500 individuals was found. The remains of Pharaoh’s army and his horses had been underwater almost fifty times as long. This is a point which must not be lost upon those evaluating Ron Wyatt’s claims.

180

HOLY RELICS

The difference in depth of the artifacts is not a relevant issue. Indeed, life forms are much more numerous at 60 meters under the sea than they are at 4,000 meters. The greater pressure is not relevant to the work of the devouring organisms, except that they are more numerous at the shallower site. The salinity of the water is similar in both locations. That the immense pressure at 4,000 meters did not cause the destruction of the bones is evidenced by the discovery of the ceramic head of a doll in perfect preservation. It was not cracked or crushed. The wreck of the Titanic stands erect. It would not be wise to invoke a miracle of God in the claimed preservation of bones at the crossing site, since no bones, proven to be around 3,500 years old by careful testing, have been produced in the more-thantwo decades since Ron Wyatt made his “discoveries”. The matter of the wood of the chariots and their wheels is less clear. There has been a consistent failure to describe these artifacts as having been submerged below mud, a condition which may have enhanced preservation of the wood, as we shall document in a moment. Further, it is unlikely that teak wood from Southeast Asia was used in the construction of Pharaoh’s chariots. What is amazing is that wood could have survived 3,500 years under sea water when not covered by significant sediment. We document the finding of the Titanic after a mere 73 years of submersion:— At some point, weeks or months later, wood-boring mollusks, the larvae of which were probably borne by the submarine currents, found their way to the wreck. They settled, metamorphosed and then dined on the soft pine wood of the Titanic’s decks and gradually migrated inside the openings in the hull. Within a few years, the decks were mostly eaten away and, inside the ship, the lavish wood furniture, fine carvings, elaborate tapestries, and Axminster carpets were all but gone, along with the wood paneling and the oak banisters of the grand staircases.

These mollusks play an important role in deep-submarine ecology, breaking down wood and thus increasing the cycling of nutrients. But by the time we visited the ship, these creatures were likely dead and gone; all that was left were the calcareous tubes characteristic of a particular species of wood-borer—the one that likely played the major role in devouring the ship. While these mollusks thrived, so did the species of fish and crustaceans that prey on them, making the ship an underwater oasis.

Bones and Wood

181

We can only speculate why some of the wood on the Titanic and in the debris field remained intact. Teak, being a very dense wood, is generally resistant to the borers, and teak has survived rather well on the Titanic. All teak railings, topcourses, and roof trim appeared to be in almost mint condition. But these creatures don’t generally respect wood that has been treated with antiweathering material; so why was that set of stairs we saw so well preserved? Perhaps it, too, was teak. Not long ago, an ancient ship buried under Mediterranean bottom mud was found with much wood intact. Once uncovered, the wood remained impervious to wood-borers while fresh wood left nearby was devoured. Apparently something happens when the wood is buried, but we don’t know what. And since the wood on the Titanic was never covered, this can’t explain the selective preservation there. (Ibid, pp.260,261) We are compelled to conclude from the evidence that it is most unlikely that any human or equine remains have been discovered which have remained from Pharaoh’s army. The evidence strongly discounts such a possibility. The fact that no tested, credible evidence of such remains has been produced over a period of 20 years, would make the conjecture that a miraculous preservation has transpired, quite untenable. It is also likely that the wood of the chariots would have long since disintegrated. While this matter is a little more open than that of the skeletons, we suggest that the weight of evidence lies on the side of total disintegration over the vast period of 3,500 years, especially as, once again, no tested evidence of such wood has been documented in the past two decades. These facts would demand due caution in accepting the underwater claims of Ron Wyatt. Gillian Hutchinson of the Department of Marine Biology, at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, England, stated that the Gulf of Aqaba is a hostile environment for the preservation of human remains. She cited three reasons for this fact: 1. The water is warm. This encourages the proliferation of carcassdestroying bacteria and sea-life. 2. The region is relatively shallow. Most carcass-destroying bacteria and sea-life proliferate more readily in shallower waters. 3. Because of the extremely low level of silt, there is ample oxygen available to sustain the carcass-destroying entities.

182

HOLY RELICS

Dr. Hutchinson stated that sunken boats which have been recovered after centuries underwater, have remained relatively intact only because they are covered by silt and thus deprive destroying organisms of oxygen. The Mary Rose which was salvaged several decades ago after having been sunk in the sixteenth century, only survived because it was covered by silt and mud (Telephone conversation between Gillian Hutchinson and Roger Rose—March 9, 1999). Russell confirmed that maritime wrecks were only preserved for long periods when they are covered by silt (conversation between Oxford graduate, Jeremy Green, Head of the Maritime Archaeology Department, Western Australian Maritime Museum and Russell Standish—March 10, 1999). For identical reasons, bodies have remained preserved for centuries in peat bogs. But these conditions are crucially different from those found at “the Red Sea Crossing site.”

35

Scuba Diving

HE finding of the chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqaba is claimed to have been achieved by use of common scuba diving equipment. Scuba diving is a hazardous recreation. Pressurized nitrogen has a narcotic effect upon the brain. This pressurized nitrogen narcosis is sometimes known as the “rapture of the deep” and produces effects not dissimilar to alcohol. It is caused by expansion of the membranes of the nerve cells in the brain. It has been found that helium gas produces the opposite effect—it constricts the neural membranes. Thus when helium replaces nitrogen in the gas mixtures, this narcotic effect is delayed until the diver reaches about 150 meters (500 feet) below the surface, whereas with the normal gases using air (and thus nitrogen) the limit is about 39 meters (120 feet). Experiments have been undertaken using, in addition to life-sustaining oxygen, a mixture of nitrogen and helium in the hope that the expansion of the cell membranes due to nitrogen, and the contraction of those membranes by pressurized helium will cancel one another out. Such a mixture does make it possible to dive at deeper levels without narcosis but does not eliminate the problem. Of course the problems of oxygen toxicity at high pressure, and breathing difficulties caused by the increased density of the gases at high pressure, do not abate with the use of the helium-nitrogen admixture. Nevertheless in 1993 a world record depth of 701 meters was obtained, not under water, but in a simulated situation in a hyperbaric chamber. But it required seven days of compression to safely reach this level and thirty days of decompression to restore the volunteers to normal atmospheric conditions. Thus they spent 37 days—5 weeks and 2 days in the chamber. Clearly that would scarcely be feasible under water. (Scientific American, August, 1995 p. 57) This matter needs to be considered in relation to the fact that careful soundings taken by the British Admiralty have demonstrated that in the

T

183

184

HOLY RELICS

midst of the Gulf of Aqaba, where the chariots were said to be destroyed (Exodus 14:27), the depth has been found to be 850 meters, 149 meters deeper than the world record achieved in a compression chamber. We have, in the chapter entitled “The British Admiralty Charting Procedures,” discredited Ron Wyatt’s claim, that the use of satellite measurements has shown that this depth is not 850 meters, but between 60 and 90 meters. He stated to Russell that he discovered the wheels at about 60 meters (200 feet). Let us examine this claim at face value. Recreational scuba divers can normally dive to about 39 meters (125 feet) in safety. Time Magazine, Aug. 14, 1995 placed the limit at 40 meters. To dive below this depth is usually termed technical diving. It is quite a different matter. If the depth of the crossing is between 200 feet and 300 feet as Wyatt claims, it cannot be reached except by the use of sophisticated equipment of an expensive nature without endangering one’s life. Ron Wyatt informed Russell that he had used normal scuba diving equipment. Perhaps the situation can be better appreciated by documenting these matters: Although once enjoyed mainly by adventurous males not overly concerned with personal safety, recreational scuba diving has become no riskier than skiing. The metamorphosis was achieved through decades of improvements in equipment and training. Recreational divers were limited to breathing ordinary compressed air and to depthand-time exposures that do not require decompression in stages on the way up. These restrictions in turn led to a limit of 39 meters, a depth at which standard tables recommend that a diver spend no more than 10 minutes unless staged decompression is planned. For the vast majority of divers the 39-metre [120 feet] limit is not onerous. Technical divers, however, use sophisticated methods and equipment, some adapted from commercial and military diving, to go deeper. “It opens up places you can’t see any other way, such as deep shipwrecks and caves,” says Michael Menduno, editor of aquaCorps, a bi-monthly magazine devoted to technical diving. “It’s not easy, and there is some danger involved,” adds Billy Deans, a veteran technical diver who helped to establish the field. “But it is now possible to go to 250 or 300 feet [about 90 meters] with an acceptable degree of risk.” Acceptable, that is, to extremely experienced divers with some cash to burn. The training alone can cost several thousand dollars. And it is not uncommon for a technical diver to step into the water wearing

Scuba Diving

185

$9,000 worth of equipment, including diapers, (a dive to 80 meters, with its staged decompression, can occupy at least two and a half hours). For the privilege of spending half an hour on the seafloor at 77 meters [250 feet], a diver would need at least four separate tanks, each with its own breathing rig, or “regulator.” Two big bottles of an oxygen, helium and nitrogen “trimix,” worn on the back, would cover the descent, a 30-minute bottom interval and just over half of the ascent. Smaller bottles of “nitrox-2” (36 percent oxygen and 64 percent nitrogen) and pure oxygen, strapped to the sides of the body, would be used during the decompression, above 34 meters. The decompression stops—12 in all—would start at 37 meters and continue at three-meter intervals all the way to the surface. —(Scientific American Aug. 1995, pp.57, 58).

When Russell pointed these matters out to Ron Wyatt, he replied that he only spent five minutes at 200 feet and thus did not require sophisticated equipment nor four tanks of gases. It would indeed be remarkable to discover and identify artifacts encrusted by coral for 3500 years in 5 minutes. Further, his statement did not accord with the claim that When Ron and his two sons donned their diving gear to investigate [the seabed for the first time], within half an hour they had found the first chariot wheel! A few minutes later Ron found another one. (International Discovery Times, 1998 p. 4, emphasis added).

From this report the conclusion was drawn that: Ron Wyatt and his sons had discovered where the famous crossing actually took place (Ibid.).

Clearly Ron claims he was scuba diving beyond 30 minutes for he found a second wheel some minutes after the first wheel which was discovered in half an hour. This is quite a discrepancy in time as compared with the 5 minutes he claimed, to Russell, it had taken him to find the wheels. It should be noted that this time-recollection was made after Russell had shown Ron the Scientific American article. We would remind the reader of the report made by the British Hydrographic office after viewing Jonathan Gray’s video presentation on the subject. The report stated: The diving equipment seen in the video is clearly self-contained underwater breathing equipment i.e. compressed air. The world record depth achieved using this equipment, under controlled conditions, is

186

HOLY RELICS

133m (437 ft). Mr. Gray talks of diving 1½ miles off shore. This would mean diving in depths in excess of 150m. If, as it is claimed, Ron dived to depths of 60m (200 ft) then this must have been done within half a mile of the coast. The Gulf of Aqaba is some ten miles wide at this point, approximately seven miles of this distance is deeper than 300m, or to put it another way, below the depth to which light rays can reach. This makes it difficult to accept that the naturally lit scenes of the seabed, particularly those taken by the remote camera, were of “the sand Bridge on the bottom of the Red Sea.” (Letter written by Ken Arthurson to Mrs. Healy, 8 Sept., 1995)

Plainly Ron Wyatt’s reports do not tally with proven fact. Russell felt that Ron Wyatt was quite out of his depth when discussing the matter of scuba diving, its limits and risks. His speedy retreat to the “five minute dive” when confronted with the Scientific American article did not engender confidence. This sense of doubt was exacerbated later when Russell read the International Discovery Times, which had been distributed widely in Melbourne in order to publicize Ron Wyatt’s meetings, for this stated otherwise. Even the discovery of a 3,500-year-old wheel in 30 minutes would be quite remarkable. To dive just in the correct area in a Gulf as large as the Gulf of Aqaba and discover a “land bridge” that no authoritative nautical chart displayed and then to discover the wheels in 30 minutes of diving, despite the accumulation of millennia of coral growth really implies a feat of extraordinary magnitude. To discover these artifacts in 5 minutes greatly enhances the magnitude of the feat. If the actual depth is far deeper than 60 meters then the Wyatt report is in even greater difficulty. It must not be forgotten that none of these wheels has ever been produced for the inspection of those attending Ron Wyatt’s seminars. The fragile nature of the wheels is cited as the reason for this paucity of evidence. But many of the wheels are said to be metallic (even gold) and surely it is possible to bring samples safely for examination. Underwater sealing is available to assist. When Russell spoke to Ron Wyatt (30 Sept., 1998), Ron stated that he did take a wheel hub to the Cairo Museum of Antiquities. It contained the remains of 8 spokes. Ron stated that the curator to whom he presented the relic just placed it in a cupboard. Thus it is not on display. Such nonchalance with a 3,500-year-old archaeological find is surprising to say the least. One would have thought that funds would have been raised in order

Scuba Diving

187

to undertake an underwater archaeological exploration, for this was a claimed discovery of no ordinary nature. More details were provided in the International Discovery Times 1998, p. 4: Ron Wyatt discovered the hub of a wheel with the remains of eight spokes and took it to the Director of Antiquities in Cairo, Nassif Mohammed Hassan, with whom he had been working. Mr. Hassan examined it and immediately pronounced it was of the 18th Dynasty. Apparently eight-spoked wheels were only used during the 18th Dynasty. Such valuable information certainly narrows the date!

This data supplied a means to seek the documentation of these assertions which we had not previously found provided. But alas, Mr. Nassif Mohammed Hassan is dead. He died on March 18, 1988. Mr. Hassan still occupied his position at the time of his death. For the sake of accuracy it should be recorded that Mr. Nassif Mohammed Hassan was never Director of Antiquities. His post at the time of his death was Director of Foreign Cultural Ties at the Antiquity Department in Cairo. There must be a measure of frustration amongst those endeavoring to confirm Ron Wyatt’s undocumented claims. So many of them cannot be documented for the evidence is withheld, or perhaps is non-existent or, as in the case of Mr. Hassan, lost through death. On February 5 1999, Geraldine Doss visited the Museum of Antiquities in Cairo. There she observed on display five chariots from the 18th Dynasty which is said to have commenced in the 16th century B.C., an era which assuredly did cover the period of the Exodus. All possessed sixspoke wheels. Mrs. Doss, upon making inquiries, found that none of the officers of this section of the museum was acquainted with chariots containing eight spokes in the period of the 18th Dynasty. We concede that this in no wise proves that such did not exist, but it is disconcerting that so often Ron Wyatt’s data defies confirmation. The one man whose testimony is quoted as stating that eight-spoke wheels only existed in the 18th dynasty has been named only after his death and thus his testimony cannot be verified. In view of this fact it is beholden upon Ron Wyatt or Jonathan Gray to confirm the matter in credible documentary publications. We have attempted to confirm this matter, but without success. Of course, the volumes written on the antiquities of Egypt are numerous and it would be useful if one reader who possesses such documentation could share it with us. Even accepting this assertion, we still have absolutely no evidence that

188

HOLY RELICS

any wheels from the era of Moses, let alone 8-spoke wheels, have been discovered under the sea. Joseph Zias reported to Russell that the video he viewed shows a wheel of a much more recent vintage than the 18th Dynasty. We note that Ron Wyatt rarely mentions the names of the “authorities” with whom he has shared information if they are known to be still living. Mr. Zias, to whom Ron gave certain artifacts, is not identified by name. We only discovered Mr. Zias’ identity through Mr. Zias’ own information on the Internet. Documentation which can be verified is not a characteristic of Ron Wyatt’s claims. On March 6, 1999 Aaron Sen, of England, spoke with Colin in London stating that he had scuba dived in the Gulf of Aqaba in March 1998. He provided written material of his finds. He stated that he had ... found dozens of human bones that were corralled. I gave one to a friend on the dive who was a scientist. He had it analyzed at the Dept. of Osteology, Stockholm University, and it proved to be a very old human femur. I also found a four-spoke chariot wheel. It had lost its rim but its spokes and hub were still intact. Eric tried to chisel off the hub with a hammer and chisel, but not surprisingly, he could not, as it was made of iron. On another dive my friend Bill found a circular coral. He noticed it because one rarely finds perfect circles in nature. So he took a reading off an underwater metal detector that he had, and it proved to be iron. (Statement written by Aaron Sen dated March 22, 1999).

First-hand testimony such as this deserves respect. Such testimony is legitimate in a court of law, However, until wheels are extracted from the area and scientifically examined, the question of their nature and their era, remains unproven. The fact that these bones and wheels are said to be lying around is confirmation of the absence of any significant silt in the region. In such circumstances it would be amazing that bones could remain in excellent preservation for 3,500 years in the warm water and the relative shallow depths of the Gulf of Aqaba. On inquiry, Russell discovered that Aaron Sen had passed the human femur to Dr. Lennart Moller, a Medical Scientist of the University of Stockholm. We had hoped that the femur would have been subjected to radioactive carbon dating. This has not been undertaken. By way of explanation for this omission, Dr. Moller explained that the bone was petrified and thus contained no carbon. Thus the femur may be old, but is it 3,500 years old? This question has not been settled. Until the objects are subjected to independent evaluation, these claims

Scuba Diving

189

must remain unproven. Ron Wyatt had an ideal opportunity to test his claimed hub given to Mr. Hassan, but he did not have it tested. We reserve judgment until testing is undertaken upon objects encrusted by coral. Without such encrustation the object could have been introduced to the site by an over-enthusiastic supporter of the discoveries. Such accusations have been leveled by those denying the “evidence” produced in favor of that site, and against the fossilized wood said to have been found on the top of Mount Ararat by claimants who have announced that they have found Noah’s Ark on that mountain.

36

Underwater Archeology

E make no secret of the fact that we have been amazed by the rapidity with which Ron Wyatt claims that he has made so many archaeological discoveries. We also marvel at the ease with which he has claimed to have succeeded in a most difficult discipline—underwater archaeology, especially when the depth of the finds are beyond the capability of recreational scuba divers. We illustrate our grounds for querying such claims by discussing an example of another underwater archaeological excavation, undertaken by the highly respected underwater archaeologist, Frenchman Franck Gaddio. Since Gaddio’s underwater archaeology was undertaken in Egypt also, it provides an excellent basis for comparison. In the fourth century of the Christian era, about 1600 years ago, a series of earthquakes and subsequent severe flooding submerged a portion of the Egyptian city of Alexandria. This area included the royal palace. Alexandria had been founded by the mighty Macedonian warrior, Alexander the Great. Upon his death one of Alexander’s four generals, Ptolemy, was accorded rulership over the Egyptian portion of Alexander’s empire and he and his successors became known as the biblical Kings of the South (Daniel 11:5). The Ptolemies continued to occupy the palace. A few decades before the birth of Christ, the renowned queen Cleopatra occupied the palace. Her romance with the Roman ruler, Antony, became the subject of one of William Shakespeare’s famous dramas. It was one of the plays we studied in the first year of our course in English at the University of Sydney. The remains of this temple and surrounding regions of the city have lain at the bottom of the present Harbour of Alexandria for the past sixteen centuries. It was not until the early 1990s that an effort was undertaken to excavate this most interesting historical site. There was an important reason why this underwater excavation was not undertaken previously:

W

190

Underwater Archeology

191

The Egyptian government had talked of excavating the city under the sea in 1984 “but it was impossible with the available technology of the time,” says Gaddio. All that changed in 1991 when Gaddio helped to design new, highly sensitive underwater scanning equipment and got the blessing of the Supreme Council for Egyptian Antiquities to go hunting (The Bulletin, Australia’s chief weekly news magazine, March 2, 1999).

The imaging was undertaken by the use of ... nuclear resonance imaging to detect magnetic anomalies. (Ibid.)

It was, as is always true in underwater archaeology, a very difficult task. First Gaddio had to remove thick sediment, for The rocks [were] encrusted with a metre of marine growth and sediment (Ibid.).

Gaddio headed an international team of thirty-five. This consisted of individuals skilled in various professional activities. These included engineers, archaeologists, divers, artists and electricians. Carefully they pursued their quest and meticulously they evaluated their findings. An electronic image of the submerged ground was made and then several dives were undertaken to map the contours of the land. It took another four years to interpret the data (Ibid.).

Yet the depth of the eastern Harbor in which the remains lay is “less than six meters.” It is hoped to complete the excavation around 2010. Gaddio has plans to leave the artifacts in place, to enclose the region in glass and construct an underwater museum for the interest of Egyptians and tourists. In comparing this underwater excavation with that of Ron Wyatt, in the same nation, Egypt, we note the following contrasts. In evaluating Wyatt’s unverified finds, this comparison is worthy of careful consideration. 1. The underwater excavation had the blessing of the Supreme Council for Egyptian Antiquities. 2. These artifacts are less than 6 meters (20 feet) under water. Ron Wyatt claims that he found his artifacts ten times deeper—60 meters (200 feet). 3. Conventional scuba diving is safe at 6 meters; but at 60 meters equipment and gases beyond recreational scuba diving are required. 4. The artifacts of Gaddio’s search were submerged 1600 years ago. Ron Wyatt’s artifacts were submerged more than twice as long—3500 years.

192 5.

HOLY RELICS

While in 1600 years the Alexandria artifacts had accumulated a meter of marine growth and sediments, the claimed artifacts of the Gulf of Aqaba had lain there 1900 years longer. They were encrusted with coral. Yet Ron Wyatt claims to have found them within 30 minutes of his first dive. 6. The eastern Harbor of Alexandria occupies a very small region. The Gulf of Aqaba occupies an area of approximately 3,000 square kilometers (1250 square miles) since the gulf is approximately 200 kilometers (125 miles) long and 15 kilometers (10 miles) wide. We cannot help but contrast the rapidity with which Ron Wyatt made his discovery in this 3,000 square kilometers of water—30 minutes after making his first dive— and the painstaking efforts of Gaddio, spending four years of research. Yet Wyatt’s artifacts were ten times deeper than those of Gaddio and had been encrusted by coral more than twice as long a period of time. 7. Further, Gaddio felt incompetent, prior to 1991, to investigate his field of research because of the unavailability of scientific equipment necessary to penetrate the marine accumulations and silt. Ron Wyatt had made the major discoveries of his underwater excavation well before 1991 and has never spoken of having used the advanced scanning equipment possessed by Gaddio. Again we emphasize that Gaddio’s artifacts were only 6 meters below the surface; Wyatt’s were at least 60 meters below at a depth where scuba divers using normal equipment and gases, as Wyatt has claimed, imperil their lives. And further, Wyatt’s artifacts had been accumulating coral encrustments for 1900 years before the palace of Alexandria was submerged. 8. Gaddio had the benefit of a team of 35, while Ron Wyatt had his two sons with him. While we most certainly would not discount the possibility that Christ could lead a man to overcome every one of these significant disadvantages and reveal an artifact which God determined would be helpful to verify Biblical history, we balk at drawing such a conclusion in this case because of the absence of confirmed findings. The defect in such a suggestion to explain Ron Wyatt’s Herculean feat to discover the chariot wheels, against such almost insuperable odds, in a mere 30 minutes, is that he has produced nothing, nothing whatsoever, to verify his claim. If he had brought forth a wheel which was certified by credible testing techniques to be a wheel from an Egyptian chariot of the

Underwater Archeology

193

era of the Exodus, then the concept of divine aid could be invoked. But in the absence of any credible evidence that the chariot wheels are under the water, it would evidence a lack of wisdom to accept this claim.

37

Mt. Sinai in Arabia

J

EBEL EL LAWZ, a 2580 meter (8464 foot) mountain in Saudi Arabia has been designated by Ron Wyatt as the Biblical Mount Sinai. How did Ron Wyatt ( and two other adventurers working independently of Wyatt) arrive at this conclusion? Having successfully located the remains of Pharaoh’s army in the gulf of Aqaba, Ron knew that Mt Sinai had to be on the opposite shore in Saudi Arabia. (International Discovery Times, p.5)

We have shown that the Red Sea crossing site across the Gulf of Aqaba rests upon tenuous evidence. This is to express the matter in its best light. Thus the basis for the Saudi Arabian location of Mt Sinai has been placed upon a less than firm foundation. Another basis offered is Scriptural: For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children (Galatians 4:25).

This text is open to two interpretations. 1. Hagar, Abraham’s second wife, is Mount Sinai [which is] in Arabia. This is the view taken by those supporting Ron Wyatt’s location for Mount Sinai. 2. The second view understands this text in the light of its context: Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children (Galatians 4:24,25).

This is the only scriptural passage where the word “allegory” is used. An allegory is defined as, a story, play, poem, picture, etc. in which the meaning or message is represented symbolically. (Oxford English Reference Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1996)

194

Mt. Sinai in Arabia

195

Let us examine more fully the second view. Paul clearly had concerns about the Celtic believers of Galatia (Gal. 4:15–20). Then Paul speaks of the law and the covenants: Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. (Gal. 4:21– 23)

Here Paul makes a comparison between Isaac who was born of the promise and Ishmael who was born after the flesh—one born of a free woman, the other of a bondwoman. From these differing circumstances Paul sets forth his allegory concerning the two covenants—the one from Mt Sinai which leads to bondage which was represented by the bondwoman. Jerusalem represents the free woman (Gal.4:26). Those of this view do not see Galatians 4:25 as a geographical statement. Rather, Hagar was the mother of the Arabs. She then as the progenitor of the Arabs represented Mt Sinai, for God’s law came to the Arabs through the testimony of Hagar. Ron Wyatt has also offered other reasons for the selection of Jebel el Lawz as the Mt Sinai upon which the sacred law was presented to Moses. These reasons include: 1. The peak of the mountain is blackened. We must say that the only photographs we have seen of this mountain (in the International Discovery Times p. 5 and in Discovered Back Issues, 1995 and on two videos) are not conclusive. The crest of the mount appears simply a darker shade of brown than the rather light brown coloration of this mountain. It rather appears as if a cloud is passing overhead, although we do not suggest this as the explanation. 2. A rather elongated horned creature said to be an Egyptian-style Apis Bull is depicted in the above papers. It is one of twelve, representing the twelve Israelite tribes, according to Ron Wyatt. 3. Near one of these remarkably clearly carved calves is a rock, rather nondescript in appearance, which has been identified by Ron Wyatt as an altar. One wonders why in a period of 3,500 years the carving of the bulls in the rock has not discolored from their bright cream appearance. 4. A rock fence around the perimeter of the mountain which Ron believes to be the fence erected to prevent the people trespassing upon holy ground, lest they stray to the mountain and be

196

HOLY RELICS

struck dead. The article states that a Saudi archaeologist, whom Ron does not identify, from Rejard University— was flown in to examine the site. He was very excited by the inscriptions of twelve Egyptian bulls on a large altar there. No similar inscription has ever been found in Saudi Arabia and the style was distinctly ancient Egyptian, he said. (International Discovery Times, p.5)

Frustratingly the archaeologist’s name is not divulged. He is probably still alive and could assist us in confirmation. In Ron Wyatt’s Discoveries Video, the video frequently shown at his presentations, Mary Nell Wyatt narrates a section dealing with a wire fence which has been placed about an area near Jebel el Lawz which has been designated as an archaeological site by Royal Saudi decree. Mary Nell states that, ... we can see a large fence and a guard house which was erected immediately after Ron Wyatt showed this site to a Saudi archaeologist in 1985. This fence follows along the 18-foot boundary markers which Moses was directed to erect by God. The sign by the guardhouse states that this is an archaeological site passed by royal decree; that it is unlawful to trespass except by penalty.

One item which is visible on the notice is the date of this royal decree. This date is 1302. Of course this undoubtedly refers to the Islamic system of dating which commenced dating from the era of Mohammed in the seventh century C.E. (Christian era). The Islamic year is a little shorter than ours. The Islamic year 1420 commenced in April 1999. Thus the Islamic year 1302 occurred in the late nineteenth century. Although it has not been claimed by Ron Wyatt, some have concluded that the site was officially designated as an archaeological site by Saudi Arabian authorities in response to Ron Wyatt’s “discoveries.” Clearly this is not so. For reasons which would be interesting to learn, the authorities declared the site to be of archaeological importance over a century ago. Of course we do not dispute the fact that the enclosing of the area by a fence is of more recent date. It is stated that, the mountain enclosed an area of over 5,000 acres (2,000 hectares) able to accommodate millions of people and their flocks (Ibid).

Let us take the lowest possible figure for the Israelite number—two million. The claim is that 5,000 acres would be ample to accommodate all these people together with their flocks and herds.

Mt. Sinai in Arabia

197

Someone has not done his arithmetic here. Five thousand acres containing two million people (at least—many suggest three million as the smallest number) would represent 400 people per acre—over a quarter of a million people per square mile (100,000 per square kilometer)! The most densely populated cities of this world do not attract anywhere near such density, even without millions of sheep and cattle. Macau, a city of 6.6 square miles (17 square kilometers), was the most densely populated political entity in the world before it became part of China in December 1999. Yet, despite many high-rise apartments, its population density was only 57,576 per square mile (22,353 per square kilometer). Another well-known city-state, in which most of the populace dwell in high-rise apartments is Singapore. Its population density for its 2,800,000 citizens, probably a similar number to the Israelites, is 11,520 per square mile. And make no mistake, neither of these nations support flocks of sheep and cattle (RandMcNally, The New International Atlas, 1994). If the figure of 5,000 acres is correct then this would be an argument against this region being the site of Mt Sinai. In the region just before Mt Sinai was a rock in Horeb which Moses was commanded to strike to produce water for the Israelites (Exodus 17:6). Somehow Ron Wyatt regards this rock in Horeb as Mount Horeb: The Rock of Horeb is certainly impressive. Although referred to as a “mount,” Mt. Horeb is a mound perhaps 35 meters (110ft) high in the midst of the plain. (Ibid.)

The Bible plainly states that the rock which was struck was in Horeb. It was not Mt Horeb which was a synonym for Mt Sinai. Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. (Deuteronomy 4:10–14)

198

HOLY RELICS

The Scriptures refer to Mount Horeb as the mount or mountain of God: And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God. (1 Kings 19:8) Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. (Exodus 3:1)

We are further told that: The law of Jehovah was unchangeable, and the tablets upon which He wrote that law were solid rock, signifying the immutability of His precepts. Rocky Horeb became a sacred spot to all who loved and revered the law of God. (My Life Today, p.259)

Thus the rock was in Horeb, but it was not Mount Horeb. Mount Horeb was vastly higher than 35 meters. Whether the rock Ron Wyatt has identified as the rock struck by Moses at God’s command (not to be confused with the second rock, many years later which Moses struck in anger), we do not profess to judge. But we do observe that Ron Wyatt has produced no sound evidence other than a hunch which he has. Unfortunately, as with so many of Ron Wyatt’s discoveries, we cannot go to Jebel el Lawz to confirm Ron Wyatt’s finds, for the area, he informs us, is now a military zone. Thus we cannot confirm the blackened summit, the carvings of bulls, the altar or the protective fence erected by the Israelites. One hallmark of the most interesting of Ron Wyatt’s “discoveries” is that we cannot have the privilege of seeing what he has seen. Noah’s and his wife’s graves have now been destroyed by an earthquake; they really would have been worth a visit! The wheels under the Gulf of Aqaba are in too fragile a state to be safely brought to the surface. The Israelis prevent us from seeing the Ark of the Covenant and other temple furnishings. “Mount Horeb” is also off bounds. Do we know for certain where Mt Sinai is? No! What is certain is the fact that Ron Wyatt was not the first man to identify its location in Arabia. Seven years before Ron Wyatt commenced his search, a Jehovah’s Witnesses publication, also quoting Galatians 4:25, identifies Arabia as the site of Mount Sinai under the subject heading SINAI MOUNT - A mountain in Arabia (Aid to Bible Understanding, Watchtower Bible Tract Society, New York, 1971)

It is not of crucial import to find the precise site of Mount Sinai. We are not Roman Catholics seeking to validate this holy site or another so that we can turn it into a sacred shrine or a suitable place to build a monastery.

Mt. Sinai in Arabia

199

Seventh-day Adventists have no sacred shrines. Yet our faith in scripture is unshakeable. In heaven and the New Earth it will be our Savior who is the “shrine” at which we worship. There we will see Him as He is, there at His feet we will kneel in joy, gratitude and adoration. And as we sit at the feet of our Instructor we feel confident that He will pinpoint for us the former location of Mt Sinai, for along with all other mountains, it will be destroyed during the seventh plague. One evaluation of the Arabian site is worth pondering: Ron has picked out Jebel el Lawz in Saudi Arabia for his Mt Sinai, in part because it lines up with his crossing point and in part because there are carvings on the rocks there. None of the rock drawings are definitive, however, and thus there is no definite demonstration that the Israelites were there. I have finally seen the photographs of this place published in a book and did not see anything distinctively Israelite there. In addition such a site requires a tremendous stretching of the Israelite route, does not have any good site identifications along the way like the Sinai site does, and ignores the fact that an Israelite inscription from the period of the Exodus has been found in the traditional Mt Sinai area in the Sinai peninsula. It may be that the site in Saudi Arabia may be archaeologically interesting or significant but that does not prove it to be the biblical Mt Sinai. —(Dr. William Shea, SDA Professor - Internet)

Once more we urge the concept that the site of Mt Sinai is irrelevant to one’s salvation, for our faith stands or falls on the sure Word of God. It is not holy relics which inspire us. It is God’s revelation. We believe every word of the Decalogue even if we are uncertain of the location of the mount upon which God presented the tables to Moses.

38

Where Is Arabia?

no doubt, will appear to be an inane question, simply addressing a geographic location which the authors should well know since they travel extensively. In any case, even an atlas designed for primary school pupils clearly defines the location of Saudi Arabia. But it will be noted that our question is not “Where is Saudi Arabia?” Rather it is, “Where is Arabia?” Now that is an entirely different question. We are seeking to discover where Arabia was located in Biblical times. While visiting the San Sebastian Jail in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in March 1999 Russell picked up a 1996 edition of the Thompson’s Chain Reference Bible in the Spanish language, owned by one of the visiting church members. Russell glanced at the Biblical Maps which were brilliantly colored. At the back of the Bible, Map No. 12 traced Paul’s First and Second Missionary Journeys—“Primero Y Segundo Viajes Misioneros De Pablo.” Map No. 13 depicted Paul’s Third Missionary Journey and his journey to Rome— “Tercer Viaje Misionero De Pablo Y Viaje Roma.” These maps depicted in the Spanish Thompson Chain Reference Bibles were produced by Editorial Vida in 1987. It is of considerable interest to observe the area to which Arabia is confined on these maps. Arabia bounded the eastern limits of Judea, occupying the territory roughly occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan today. Its northern boundary was the southern boundary of Syria, that boundary being at a parallel of latitude equal to that of Sidon on the Mediterranean coastline. The eastern border of Arabia runs to the apex of the most northerly point of the Gulf of Aqaba and then follows the western shore of the Gulf of Aqaba. In so doing, the territory of Arabia occupied the Suez Peninsula, which includes not Jebel el Lawz, Ron Wyatt’s claimed Mt Sinai, but the traditional region of Mount Sinai. We possess two English editions of the Thompson Chain Reference Bible—one a 1964 edition and the other a 1988 edition. These possess maps different one from the other, and they are quite different from the Spanish edition.

T

HIS,

200

Where Is Arabia?

201

The 1964 edition presents map No. 4 entitled, The Sinai Peninsula. This map includes the Sinai Peninsula as well as territory east of the Gulf of Aqaba, designated as Arabia. The same is true of Map 11—the Roman Empire in the Apostolic Age and also Map 12—the Eastern Mediterranean Illustrating the Missionary Journeys and the last Voyage of the Apostle Paul. The 1988 edition includes two maps copyrighted by the Kirkbride Bible Company Inc. which display the region of Arabia both north and west of the Gulf of Aqaba. These are Maps 11—Paul’s First and Second Missionary Journeys—and No. 12—Paul’s Third and Fourth Missionary Journeys. Map 13 displays Arabia once again in the region of the present Kingdom of Jordan and including the entire Sinai Peninsula west of the Gulf of Aqaba with a narrow tract of land bordering on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba. The last map in the 1997 edition of the Spirit of Prophecy Study Bible also demonstrates Arabia in the Sinai Peninsula. John Brown’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible, Fullerton & Co., Edinburgh, 1843, p.650 similarly includes the Sinai Peninsula in its map displaying Arabia. Numbers of other Bibles which we have consulted accord with these maps. From the early centuries of the Common Era [Christian Era] geographers described the sections of Arabia as Arabia Petrea, embracing the Sinai Peninsula, Edom, and Moab; Arabia Desarta, the Syrian Desert; and Arabia Felix, or South Arabia. (Aid to Bible Understanding, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1971 subject, “Arabia”)

Thus we may conclude that whether or not Galatians 4:25 means that Mount Sinai is in Arabia, this in no wise conclusively proves that the site of Mount Sinai is east of the Gulf of Aqaba. It could equally be west of the Gulf of Aqaba in the Sinai Peninsula. Let us no more hear of the use of Galatians 4:25 in a manner that indicates indisputable evidence of the location of Mount Sinai east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Remember, most of the maps cited above depict Paul’s journeys, the very time in which he penned Galatians 4:25. No doubt Paul used the designation of his day. Another matter which requires attention is the fact that Moses fled to Midian, which was located, without dispute, largely on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba and somewhat to the north. The Biblical story plainly states that as Moses was tending the sheep he was startled by observing the burning bush which was not consumed by the flames. The divine record states that this bush was in the vicinity of Mount Horeb, a synonym as we

202

HOLY RELICS

have seen in the chapter entitled Mount Sinai in Arabia, for Mount Sinai: Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. (Exodus 3:1)

If this were the sole information we possessed it would be reasonable to conclude that Mount Horeb (Sinai) was located on the eastern side of the Gulf of Aqaba. And well it may be. We do not profess to know with assurance where the Biblical Mount Sinai is located. But we are impelled to present other carefully considered evidence. One of the most respected Bible Commentaries of the nineteenth century was authored by three careful and dedicated Presbyterian clerics in 1868. Russell obtained an old second-hand copy of the seven-volume commentary from a second-hand book store in London in 1984 for forty pounds. The authors were Robert Jamieson D.D., minister of St Paul’s Church, Glasgow, A.R. Fausset M.A., minister of St Cuthbert’s Church, York, and David Brown D.D., Professor of Theology, University of Aberdeen. In the map situated between pages 88 & 89 in Volume 1, a map produced by William Collins, Sons & Co, London & Glasgow, entitled “The Ancient World Showing the Probable Settlements of the Descendants of Noah,” Midian is shown to extend both east and west of the Gulf of Aqaba. On another map produced by the same cartographers, entitled, “Map Illustrating the Journeyings of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan,” situated between pages 276 and 277 of the same volume, the Midianites are shown to occupy most of the western coastline of the Gulf of Aqaba right down to the traditional region of Mount Sinai. Also the Sinai Peninsula is named Arabia Petruca. Genesis describes the Midianites buying Joseph as a slave. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary, Critical, Experimental, & Practical, on the Old and New Testaments, William Collins and Company, Glasgow, 1868 Vol.1 p.232 comments upon the Midianites; their record is worthy of our study. All ellipses are in the original: 1. They are called Midianites; and the Medanites, being a travelling caravan composed of a mixed association of Arabians ... Medan and Midian, sons of Keturah, became heads of tribes, whose settlement was on the east of the Dead Sea. The Medanites lay south of their brethren, extending along the eastern boundary of Edom towards Sinai. Those tribes of Northern Arabia had already addicted themselves to commerce, and long did they enjoy a monopoly, the carrying trade being entirely in their hands, for the Egyptians themselves did not engage in foreign commerce. Being in the time of Jacob small tribes,

Where Is Arabia?

203

they united for the purpose of trade, and thus the Midianites, the Medanites, and a party of Ishmaelites, who inhabited the same country, were all concerned in the transaction which involved the sale of Joseph. Either the name of the one people or the other might be used in describing this travelling caravan, as they were all in copartnery. Their approach could easily be seen; for as their road, after crossing the ford from the transjordanian district, led along the south side of the mountains of Gilboa, a party seated on the plain of Dothan could trace them and their string of camels in the distance, as they proceeded through the broad and gently-sloping valley that intervenes. Trading in the produce of Arabia and India, they were in the regular course of traffic, on their way to Egypt; and the chief articles of commerce in which trading caravans dealt were a strong fragrant perfume called storax, and hence applied generally to spicery and all kinds of aromatic substances, from India and Ceylon — sweet odorous, incense and opobalsamum, balsam, or balm, distilling from a shrub in Gilead, famous for its medicinal properties and frequently mentioned in Scripture, and myrrh, the resinous gum of a small odoriferous tree, Cistus creticus, growing in Arabia-Felix [South Arabia] and North Africa, celebrated as a perfume and stimulating medicine and often given as a present, on account of its value and rarity. For these articles there must have been an enormous demand in Egypt, as they were constantly used in the process of embalmment.

Thus we see that the Midianite merchants frequently traversed the Sinai Peninsula in order to ply their merchandise in Egypt. Thus it would not be surprising that Jethro and other Midianites would settle on the western side of the Gulf of Aqaba. The same source located Jethro’s home on the western side of the Gulf of Aqaba in the vicinity of Jebel Musa, the traditional Mount Sinai site. 2. Exodus 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock... — This employment he had entered on in furtherance of his matrimonial views; but it is probable he was continuing his services now on other terms, like Jacob during the latter years of his stay with Laban— ...led the flock to the back side of the desert — i.e. on the west of the desert (Gesenius); and assuming Jethro’s head-quarters to have been at Dahab, the route by which Moses led his flock must have been west through the wide valley called by the Arabs Wady-es-Zugherah (Robinson), which conducted into the interior of the wilderness. The traditional spot is in Wady Shuweib, or Jethro’s valley, on the north of Jebel Musa, where the convent of St. Catherine now stands. Of course, Jebel Musa must be “the mount of God” — so named either according to Hebrew idiom

204

HOLY RELICS

from its great height, as “mountains of God” (Psalm 36:6); “goodly cedars” Hebrew, “cedars of God” (Psalm 80:10), or some think from its being the old abode of “the glory”; or finally from its being the theatre of transactions most memorable in the history of the true religion to Horeb — rather, Horeb-ward. Horeb, i.e. dry, desert, was the general name for the mountainous district in which Sinai is situated, and of which it is a part. It was used to designate the region comprehending that immense range of lofty, desolate, and barren hills, at the base of which, however, there are not only many patches of verdure to be seen, but almost all the valleys, or wadys, as they are called, show a thin coating of vegetation — which, towards the south, becomes more luxuriant. The Arab shepherds seldom take their flocks to a greater distance than one day’s journey from their camp. Moses must have gone at least two days’ journey, and although he seems to have been only following his pastoral course, that region, from its numerous springs in the clefts of the rocks, being the chief resort of the tribes during the summer heats, the Providence of God led him thither for an important purpose. (Ibid., p. 284, ellipses in the original)

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown traveled to the region of the traditional Mount Sinai. They examined a number of peaks in the region but concluded that Jebel Musa, the traditional Mount Sinai, alone fulfilled the Scriptural criteria. We quote their findings: 3. Many recent writers have furnished a complete solution of this difficulty by transferring the place of assembling the people to hear the proclamation of the law from the valleys in front of Safshfeh, the northern peak, to a plain in front of Jebel Musa, the southern summit. This is the spacious plain of es-Sebayeh, “which,” says Mr. Drew (Scripture Lands, p.303, 4) “widens and enlarges towards the south into a most magnificent area for a much larger encampment than could be placed in Er-Rahah. And from every point of it, with the exception of a few inconsiderable depressions beneath recent mounds, Jebel Musa, is grandly visible. This was our impression after we had walked a mile; but in order that we might be quite sure of it, and, especially, that we might quite satisfy ourselves that Abu Aldi on the south-eastern flank of Jebel Musa, did at no point hide it, we walked to the very end. At no point was the view of Jebel Musa interrupted. It rose everywhere before us, through the three miles over which Seabee extents as THE MOUNT. In the broadest part, near the south end, and along a line bearing north-west and south-east, we found the plain was one mile and three-quarters broad. We could look along it straight into the Wady es-Shiekh—a distance of fully ten miles. This wady

Where Is Arabia?

205

meets all the requirements of the narrative. Its sides, gently sloping, are filled with vegetation, Jebel Musa is the object visible at every part, and the spurs from the mountain come down along it on the east side, so as to form a clearly defined boundary.... There is abundant room in it and the adjacent wadys for the Israelites to have been placed, as the narrative describes, during the giving of the law; and after going over the conditions that must have been fulfilled by the actual scene of that event, we came deliberately and strongly to the conclusion that it had far greater claims to be received in that character than ErRahah, and that the old traditional Sinai was indeed no other than the sacred mount. Still we thought it right to go and examine Er-Rahah again, though we had seen it so plainly from Safshfeh the day before; otherwise we should have been partly falling into what appears to have been Robinson’s, Stanley’s, and others’ mistake in judging of the plain from the mountain, instead of the mountain from the plain. Obviously the problem is to find a plain from every point of which the mountain is distinctly and impressively visible — not to find a mountain where you can see every one who is standing on a given space below. We went accordingly, and traversed Er-Rahah from end to end; and we found –1. That it is of smaller superficial extent than Sebayeh: it is on the average one mile broad, and it is two miles and three-quarters long. 2. That it is not to be compared with Sebayeh in regard to its approaches, and to the nature of its side boundaries, which are, and always have been, steep and bare of vegetation; and 3. We were impressed greatly by the fact, that at all points of the plain Safsafeh stands blended and mingled with almost equal heights. Indeed, at the northern end El-Tlaha is far more impressive, so that Safsafeh could never be looked upon from Er-Rahah as THE MOUNT. Our conclusion was in the strongest manner sustained; and I do not hesitate to record my firm belief that the old traditional Sinai is the very place, if this be known at all, whence the law was given, and in view of which the people were assembled. (Ibid., pp. 353,354, ellipses in the original)

While we believe that there is no absolute certainty as to the peak upon which Moses received the Ten Commandments, we do believe that there is credible evidence that the peak was located upon the western side of the Gulf of Aqaba. Thus there is not the least wisdom in arbitrarily defining Mount Sinai on the eastern side of the Gulf and making it a matter of high moment. To examine a single point of view to the exclusion of others in this matter leads to an improper dogmatism which is unwarranted in the absence of full evidence.

206

HOLY RELICS

Time magazine Dec.14, 1999 identified eight mountains, including Jebel el Lawz, as having been espoused as the “true” Mount Sinai. The other seven sites are at various locations in the Sinai Peninsula. What is certain is that the territory of the Midianites extended on either side of the Gulf of Aqaba, not surprising since they were originally a nomadic people and that Arabia in Biblical times likewise spread across the Gulf.

39 L

The Israelite Route to The Red Sea and Sinai

ET US trace the passage of the Israelites from the Land of Goshen to the Red Sea.

And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt (Exodus 13:17)

From Goshen the road to the Philistine territory led northward. Manifestly the children of Israel were commanded by God to follow an alternate course. A number of well-used routes, other than the direct route through the Philistine territory, were open to the Israelites. They could well have traveled The Way of Shur. This would have required an easterly course through Succoth and then a northeasterly deviation to the borders of Canaan. Some have endorsed such a course. Those supporting this route have cited Sinai as Jebel Helal, a mountain high on the Sinai Peninsula about 260 kilometers (165 miles) north of the so-called traditional site of Mount Sinai. But such a course simply does not meet the divine revelation. The Way of Shur did not require travel across the Red Sea at any point. It took a course north of the Red Sea passing across the region where the Suez Canal has now been constructed in order to link the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea. Such a journey could not account for the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea nor the destruction of the Egyptian Army. Another course to the Red Sea could have entailed travelling north of the Red Sea also, in the lake-dotted land bridge between Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula and then turning east south east somewhat diagonally across the entire Sinai Peninsula to the Gulf of Aqaba, which is a gulf whose waters project from the Red Sea. From such a crossing the Israelites could subsequently have taken a northerly course along the King’s Highway via Edom and Moab to the eastern borders of Canaan. This is the route promoted by Ron Wyatt. It certainly has a better prospect than The Way of Shur for it does involve the crossing of a mass of water in which the Egyptian army could have met its doom.

207

208

HOLY RELICS

However, Scripture states: But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt. (Exodus 13:18)

This indicates that the Israelites turned directly to the wilderness of the Red Sea. Not an inkling of an extended travel to the wilderness of the Red Sea is indicated, as would be the case if they were to cross the Gulf of Aqaba on the east of the Sinai Peninsula rather than the Gulf of Suez on its west. Even more damaging to the siting of the Red Sea Crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba is the witness of the Spirit of Prophecy. In that account of the Exodus we are informed that: Instead of pursuing the direct route to Canaan, which lay through the country of the Philistines, the Lord directed their course southward, toward the shores of the Red Sea. (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 282)

Now, Scripture plainly states that the Israelites, upon reaching Succoth—a city just south of Goshen, the home of the Israelites—took their journey to the Red Sea. And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness. (Exodus 13:20)

Manifestly if the Israelites traveled south from Succoth they were bound to pass along the western shores of the Gulf of Suez and far from the Gulf of Aqaba. Furthermore, this region is very much closer to the palace of Pharaoh than the Gulf of Aqaba and Scripture demands a relatively short period of time between the Commencement of the Exodus and the marshalling of Pharaoh’s army in hot pursuit. Consider the words of the Scripture: And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us? And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him: And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. (Exodus 14:5–7)

Clearly the lapse in time required for Pharaoh to be informed that the Israelites had left Egypt permanently, rather than simply travelling a short distance to sacrifice, would not have been long. It no doubt would have taken some time for Pharaoh to organize his military expedition and to provide water and rations for the journey and return. The number of chariots requisitioned is unknown. The 600 chosen chariots were probably specifically designed for military use. Surely this was not true of “all the chariots of Egypt.” It is possible, indeed likely, that at least some of these chariots

The Israelite Route to the Red Sea and Sinai

209

were personal transportation chariots requisitioned for the purpose of carrying supplies and possibly the army personnel (foot soldiers). The time required for the two or three million Israelites to travel south of Succoth to the wilderness of the Red Sea would have been several days, bearing in mind the fact that the group included both aged and young, possessions and large flocks of sheep, goats and cattle. To have crossed the entire Sinai Peninsula to the Gulf of Aqaba would have required a considerably longer period of time. This time factor would have been increased because of the much larger amounts of supplies necessary for the longer trip. Remember, manna was not provided until after the crossing of the Red Sea. The direct route from Goshen to the Gulf of Aqaba is approximately 200 miles (320 kilometers). From Goshen to the west coast of the Gulf of Suez is about 80 miles (128 kilometers). While certainty, based upon the Biblical account is not possible, it is considerably more likely that the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Suez than the Gulf of Aqaba. The Patriarchs and Prophets statement that they traveled southward virtually mandates the Gulf of Suez site. Now Ron Wyatt chose to promote the less-likely route on the grounds that Galatians 4:25 refers to Mount Sinai in Arabia. He may not have done so if he had recognized that the Sinai Peninsula in ancient times was known as Arabia Petaea (See chapter entitled “Where is Arabia?”). If he had recognized this fact, he may have searched for the remains of Pharaoh’s army in the Gulf of Suez, although it is quite unlikely that after the passage of 3,500 years he would have been successful in such a quest for the remains would almost certainly have disintegrated. The fact that Moses was in the vicinity of Horeb when he spent 40 years in Midian has also been cited as evidence that Mount Sinai (Mount Horeb) was in Arabia because certain maps confine the territory of Midian to the east side of the Gulf of Aqaba. But as documented in the chapter, “Where is Arabia?”, there is strong evidence that the territory of the Midianites extended to the western coast of the gulf of Aqaba also. When these geographical facts are considered, there is no good reason to stand adamantly for the Jebel el Lawz site as the real Mount Sinai. It seems quite unlikely that the Israelites crossed both the gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba in order to reach Mount Sinai as would almost certainly be demanded if the Israelites turned south and Mt Sinai were east of the Gulf of Aqaba. If they did make such crossings, inspiration is remarkably silent on the matter. In view of the documented location of Arabia in ancient times both east and west of the Gulf of Aqaba, Sister White’s statement that Moses fled

210

HOLY RELICS

toward Arabia may not be used as proof that Moses fled east of the Gulf of Aqaba. It was at once determined by the monarch that he should die; and becoming aware of his danger, he made his escape, and fled toward Arabia (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 247).

We would do well to give proper weight to the important word “toward” in this sentence. In travelling toward Arabia we are simply informed that he was travelling in that direction. This statement alone does not provide conclusive evidence that his destination was Arabia, whether east or west of the Gulf of Aqaba. While not totally excluding the possibility that the Israelites traveled across the Gulf of Aqaba instead of the Gulf of Suez, we believe that the evidence favors the latter route. Recent claims by Aaron Sen (from letter written 22 March, 1999), that he has seen “dozens of human bones that were corralled” and that he “gave one to a friend on the dive who was a scientist” and that this scientist “had it analyzed at the Dept. of Osteology, Stockholm University, and that it proved to be a very old human femur,” while interesting, fall frustratingly short of the required evidence. In fact, as we have shown in the chapter entitle “Scuba Diving,” the “ancient femur” was not formally tested at the University of Stockholm much beyond inspection. It certainly has not been, as yet, subjected to any dating analysis. No evidence of any sort has yet been provided by anyone confirming that the claimed wheels belonged to Pharaoh’s army. Is it not time, if this matter is considered of such importance as to be almost an article of faith, to encourage trained underwater archaeologists to use state of the art equipment to gather specimens for thorough testing and evaluation? It is difficult to believe that the Department of Antiquities in Egypt would lack interest in such a dramatic discovery. Let it not be forgotten that Islam does not deny the events of the Old Testament and that that religion believes that Moses was a prophet of God. We must state that Ron Wyatt’s claim that he found the wheels at about 200 feet depth amongst coral, has one major problem which requires further evaluation—coral rarely grows below a depth of 90 feet (28 meters), (Colliers Encyclopaedia, 1990 edition, subject “Coral”). Coral requires sunlight for its propagation and beyond that depth very little sunlight penetrates. This is the reason why the coral reefs of the world are great tourist attractions. It is easy to inspect them without the use of the advanced scuba diving equipment required at depths below 120 feet (39 meters). It is also the reason why so many ships have foundered on coral reefs. None of these

The Israelite Route to the Red Sea and Sinai

211

wrecks had draughts of anywhere near 200 feet (60 meters) and thus could not have struck reefs at such depths. Until these matters are elucidated, those who see the Israelite route as a matter of vital importance to faith (a view we do not take), would do well to at least withhold their judgment or lean towards the more likely route as found in inspiration. Our suggestion is that we not raise to matters of high spiritual importance, that which is not specifically laid down in inspired writings. To do so when there is a lack of incontrovertible evidence as in this matter, is even less warranted.

40 O

Sodom and Gomorrah

F COURSE Ron Wyatt did not discover the claimed site of Sodom and Gomorrah. That region has never been lost or hidden. It is stated that

When Ron Wyatt found these sites [the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim and Zoar] during the 1980s, he knew they were the lost cities (International Discovery Times p. 3),

But the “finding” of these areas cannot be attributed to Ron Wyatt. This region could not be found for it was not lost. What can be attributed to Ron Wyatt is the fact that he has popularized these sites as that of the cities of the plain destroyed by God. There is no doubt that God utterly destroyed those cities: And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath (Deuteronomy 29:23). But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all (Luke 17:29).

Let it be understood that Deuteronomy 29:23 is describing the destruction of Israel and likening it to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is the context (See Deuteronomy 29:18–28). This prophecy was not fulfilled in the days of literal Israel but will be fulfilled when God destroys those who are unfaithful members of spiritual Israel (Revelation 14:10; 19:20; 21:8). This text does not assert that the site of Sodom today possesses brimstone, any more that it is still burning. Scripture also describes the manner of their destruction: Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground (Genesis 19:24,25). And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned

212

Sodom and Gomorrah

213

them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly (2 Peter 2:6).

What is certain is that God, using fire and brimstone, utterly destroyed the cities. These are the same elements God will use to cleanse the earth of sin and sinners in the last days. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup. (Psalm 11:6) The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb (Rev. 14:10). And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone (Rev. 19:20). And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Rev. 20:10). But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death (Rev. 21:8).

Since the destruction of the wicked is a total annihilation, this fire and brimstone of necessity must be capable of destruction beyond that of any fire today. If the fire and brimstone brought Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes (2 Peter 2:6), that must have been a fire beyond that which we know today, one more akin to the consequences of a nuclear blast. We, of course, know nothing of God’s fires or their physics. But they are clearly fierce beyond common fires today. Thus we would urge caution in attempts to explain such destruction scientifically, for in making such attempts we may discredit any genuine findings we have made. Caution should be the hallmark of such postulation. Let it not be forgotten that when God sent fire from heaven to consume Elijah’s sacrifice it was no man-made fire, for it destroyed not only the sacrifice and the wood, matters of no surprise, but also the stones and dust. Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench (1 King 18:38).

214

HOLY RELICS

We well know that Ron Wyatt sees the sulfur “balls” he has collected from the site he claims is that of the destroyed cities, as major articles of evidence. During Russell’s discussion with him, several times he turned the conversation to this topic. But we must be careful that we do not overstate the burning properties of sulfur. Paul Hoskin, Research Associate in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, attended one of Ron Wyatt’s presentations at Christchurch on October 6, 1998. Hoskin pointed out some serious factual weaknesses in Ron’s presentation on that evening. Hoskin has placed these matters on the Internet. His objections merit consideration. We summarize Hoskin’s observations. All quotations are from Paul Hoskin’s Internet article: 1.

The Sulfur Balls were not Spherical

Firstly, the “balls” that you [Ron Wyatt] showed were not in fact spherical — they were roughly equidimensional, but not spherical. This is inconsistent with them being burning whilst airborne. Also, the sulfur occurs in a common form, found all around the World, that is a whitish-yellow native form. It cannot have been hotter than 444 degrees C (the boiling point of sulfur) or probably much hotter than the melting point of 115 degrees C. for very long.

This is a serious objection. Sulfur, it would be expected if burning as it fell from the skies should be spherical, says Hoskin. We must concur that the samples we have seen are as Hoskin describes. 2. Normal burning sulfur could not burn as fiercely as Wyatt describes, for it boils at 444.6 degrees Centigrade and thus vaporizes at that temperature. You implied in the video that the burning sulfur produces a heat hot enough to burn holes in stainless steel. That is not correct. Sulfur boils at 444.60 degrees C. whilst stainless steel only melts at 1425 degrees C.

Paul Hoskin here refers to Ron Wyatt’s Discovery Videotape which was shown at the Christchurch presentation. In this tape it was stated that a commercial laboratory would not test the sulfur in its stainless steel oven as the extreme heat would damage the oven. Ron then demonstrated that so hot is the burning sulfur that it melts a hole in a spoon, but does not state that the spoon is stainless steel. The inference to which Hoskin points is that this demonstration appears to be designed to demonstrate why the laboratory could not risk such damage to its stainless steel oven. But this “proof”

Sodom and Gomorrah

215

is invalid. If the spoon were made of stainless steel, burning sulfur could not have possibly melted a hole in the spoon since the sulfur would have vaporized long before the sulfur became sufficiently hot to melt a hole in the stainless steel spoon. Thus the spoon used in the demonstration must have been made of an alloy which melts at a temperature lower than the boiling point of sulfur. When a substance (sulfur) reaches its boiling point, heat is carried off by the vapor and the substance does not increase in temperature until vaporization ceases. Since sulfur vaporizes at a temperature 1000° C. cooler than the melting point of stainless steel it could not possibly melt a hole in stainless steel. The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1963 edition, article “sulfur,” confirms that sulfur boils at 444.6 deg. C. An effort to rescue Ron Wyatt’s claim has been made by suggesting that it is the one part in 500 (approximately) of magnesium, found in one specimen of the sulfur balls, which may have burnt the hole in the stainless steel spoon. However, since the boiling point of magnesium is 1103° C., this does not help for magnesium thus vaporizes at a temperature 322° C. cooler than that at which stainless steel melts. Only a burning object which does not evaporate before the melting point of stainless steel can melt the metal. There have been claims that some have been able to melt spoons using burning sulfur, as Ron Wyatt demonstrate on his video presentation. However, on further questioning it has been found that the metal content of the spoon was unknown. Many spoons melt in fires produced by gas stoves. Some are composed largely of tin which melts at a temperature of 231.9° C. (Ibid., subject “Tin.”) Naturally sulfur could easily melt tin, since its evaporating temperature is 212 deg. C. higher than the melting point of tin. 3.

Flame color is not indicative of temperature.

Also, the color of the flame when you burnt the sulfur is not indicative of the heat. Any high school chemistry student can tell you that the color observed when burning an element is reflective of that element: school children use this as a diagnostic test for the presence of certain elements!

Here Paul Hoskin demonstrates a degree of harshness which pervades his comments, but this does not invalidate his statement. It is correct that the flame color of sulfur burning in air does not indicate its temperature. 4.

The Gomorrah site does not evidence excessive heat.

The photos that you showed of the Gomorrah site seem to me like a

216

HOLY RELICS

typical sequence of tephra and pyroclastics (i.e. volcanic eruptive products). If you had time to look around the North Island of New Zealand you would see plenty of similar sites. The site you showed was moderately weathered, there were joints and slides, but the scape was not unlike that observed in any similar tephra sequence. Moreover, there are three pieces of evidence to show that the site did not get excessively hot (in geological terms) and that in fact, in at least some of the tephra eruptions, there was probably water present. A.

Wave structures

There are clearly wave structures present in the photo you showed. They consist in section of small (0.5 cm would be my guess from the photo) raised curled protrusions from the plane of the tephra occurring with a regular periodicity. This is likely to be caused by interaction with water, or maybe with a directional air flow. Another explanation for the wave structures is the soft sediment deformation of the unwelded tephra. One would need to look at thinsections to be sure. B.

Sulfur “balls”

Sulfur melts at 115.21 deg. C. Although the presence of crystalline sulfur “balls” in your photos suggests they didn’t get hotter than 115 deg. C, they may have been hotter and simply re-crystallized upon cooling. One thing is clear, however, and that is that they did not get hotter than the boiling point of sulfur at 444.60 deg. C. If they had then the sulfur would have boiled off. If your site really is the site of Gomorrah, then it wasn’t destroyed by the heat of the sulfur: how can 444 deg. C. destroy rock houses when rock won’t melt until 9001250 deg. C. (if it is igneous) or 1330 deg. C. if it is limestone or marble (the temperature of decomposition of CaCO3 [Calcium carbonate])? C.

Rock hardness

In the video a piece of the rock was shown to easily crumble in the hand. This can only happen if the rock is unwelded. A welded rock has all the mineral particles joined together by interstitial glass, and it happens when the tephra and pyroclastics are hot (and usually) not under water. The rocks at your Gomorrah site are unwelded indicating that they were either: hot but submarine, or subaerial and not hot enough to be welded. There is no doubt that your Gomorrah site was at one time hot, and if

Sodom and Gomorrah

217

there had been inhabitants there they would surely have perished. But there appears to be no evidence whatsoever of “thermal ionization” as I believe you say happened, that is, a runaway inferno. If there had been, we would expect all the internal structures of the rock to be destroyed and the rock to be very hard due to welding.

These objections demonstrate just how careful we must be not to overstate our case or draw scientific conclusions without checking the basic data. This objection requires a serious re-examination of the “Gomorrah site” to ensure that its identification as such stands up to objective scrutiny. The present evidence is that it does not. 5.

There is a natural explanation for the Sulfur Balls

From the quick look at the samples from the video the sulfur has a blackish mantle around the inner whitish-yellow sulfur. I would say that the outer blackish mantle is where the sulfur did burn when it landed in the soft, yet hotter than 115 deg. C. volcanic ash. There is ample natural explanation for the occurrence of the sulfur. We see this sort of thing happening today in the world-famous Taupo Volcanic Zone [New Zealand]. Here, volcanic and hydrothermal eruptions are occurring all the time. I personally have picked up whitish-yellow sulfur “balls” that have been erupted from a hydrothermal vent some distance away. They were at one stage airborne and hot. It would not have been a strange thing at all if they had landed in an unwelded, hot, soft, volcanic ash from a volcanic eruption.

41 H

OSKIN’S

Conflicting Claims

statement is at odds with the record of Wyatt’s findings:

Although numerous geologists have been consulted, no other examples of naturally occurring sulfur is found anywhere on earth that remotely resembles the form found at these sites (International Discovery Times p. 3).

It is necessary for the Wyatt samples from Israel and the Hoskin samples from the Lake Taupo region of the North Island of New Zealand to be submitted to independent testing in order to ascertain where the truth lies. Ron Wyatt speaks of the use of numerous laboratory tests in relation to his claimed discoveries. He should have no reason to balk at this opportunity to defuse Hoskin’s assertions. Joseph Zias claims that similar sulfur balls are to be found in other desert sites such as Namibia [formerly South-West Africa] and U.S.A. This independent testing is important because one headline supporting the Wyatt position is “‘Brimstone’ The Tangible Evidence.” (Ibid.) This article states that: X-ray fluorescence analysis on an example revealed the composition to be 98.4% sulfur, combined with 0.22% magnesium. The heat output of such a mixture is very high. (Ibid.)

We have seen one laboratory report which did confirm the high level of sulfur content stated above. We are not told the chemical form of the magnesium content: it is likely that magnesium carbonate or magnesium oxide, rather than the metal, would be present. Neither compound would participate in burning. It is a pity that the “very high” heat output was not quantified. The claim that the small percentage of magnesium in the specimen examined greatly enhanced the heat depends upon what levels of temperature we are claiming. The type of destruction claimed would require an extraordinarily high temperature. Since sulfur boils at 444.6 deg. C., its vaporization at that temperature would separate it from any magnesium

218

Conflicting Claims

219

present and thus promptly cease any further magnesium effect. This level would be far lower than the temperature required for we are told that: These “death balls” are embedded throughout the ashes, like raisins in a fruit cake. Surrounding each one is a shell of vitrified ash, and around this shell is a distinctly colored burn mark within the ash. It seems as if these burning balls of brimstone fell from the sky, they burned right through everything. And as they burned, after a while, molten material surrounding the sulfur cut it off from the flame preserving it within the ashes. (Ibid., emphasis added).

The “everything” it burnt through could scarcely have been materials which do not melt below 444 deg. C. We must remember that Paul Hoskin postulated an alternative explanation. We do not dare to state that the site claimed by Ron Wyatt is not correct, although we believe it to be quite unlikely (see chapter entitled “The Sulfur Balls—Evidence Against the Gomorrah Site”). We do not know and, on the evidence thus far propounded, neither does Ron Wyatt. That there has been thermal activity in the region is beyond dispute. But that fact per se is certainly no proof that this is the site of Sodom and Gomorrah. More, indeed much more, conclusive evidence is required. Certainly there are some questions raised that would negate the claim, although we do not see Paul Hoskin’s questions as absolute evidence against the hypothesis. We would urge, however, that our people require a sterner standard of evidence than many presently do, before accepting claims such as these. We may yet discover that those who claim that the cities of the plain are now covered by the waters of the Dead Sea may prove to be correct. But then they, too, have failed to produce conclusive evidence of their claim. Divers in this region have failed to discover any remains. (Thompson’s Chain Reference Bible 1988 edition, Archaeology Section, p. 1792) One matter supersedes all others—Scripture states quite conclusively that God destroyed the cities with fire and brimstone. It is more than likely that God’s fire and His brimstone are of a much more ferocious nature than that which humans have personally observed, since such fire can totally annihilate evil men and women and this sin-cursed earth. Praise God for His word. It is absolutely true even if we never produce conclusive evidence to confirm the site. Dr. William Shea, one who has been inclined towards some of the Noah’s Ark claims, nevertheless rejects the claim concerning Gomorrah. He points out that: Excellent candidates for the five cities of the plain have already been found in the eastern shore of the Dead Sea [Wyatt’s cities are located

220

HOLY RELICS

on the western shore and are distributed from one end of the Dead Sea to the other] beginning with Bab edh dhra on the Lisan peninsula and its [Sodom’s] four sister cities extending to the south. All of the archaeological findings, locations, geography, etc fit these five cities perfectly well into the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Internet statement of William Shea).

Dr. William Shea, formerly of the General Conference Biblical Research Institute is well known to us. While we have had face to face disagreements with him on some non-salvational matters, we nevertheless respect his integrity as a Seventh-day Adventist. He states that: The western shore of the Dead Sea is a poor place to locate them [the five cities of the plain] from the geographical indicators in the Biblical stories of Abraham. (Ibid.)

Dr. Shea’s word is not final, but it does merit respectful consideration and evaluation. But we again assert that our faith stands on the Word of God. It is certain. It provides us a solid foundation. It brooks no controversy. The cities of the plain were destroyed by God. The uncertainty concerning their exact location does not in the least detract from a single revelation of inspired writings. Nowhere are we enjoined to base our faith upon data in excess of that provided by the Lord. This is a dictum that must be thoroughly understood.

42

The Sulfur Balls—Evidence Against the Gomorrah Site

of men from various disciplines have emphatically denied that the formations at the claimed site of Gomorrah are composed of ash. We have already noted New Zealander, Paul Hoskin’s objections. He also guessed, after viewing Ron Wyatt’s video in Christchurch, that the formations were composed of tephra. Of course guesswork is not evidence and accurate determination requires on-the-spot evidence. So let us examine the claims of a man who has worked for years in the region. One such man is Derek J. Knight, MA, FICE, CEng FGS, a chartered civil engineer of the county of Essex, England. Derek Knight is a devout Christian and a believer in the Biblical account of creation. He was first employed in the region of the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley in the mid 1960s but discontinued this work in 1967 upon the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli War in that year. In the 1970s until 1996 he was employed as a civil engineer on the Arab Potash Company’s solar evaporation scheme in the southern basin of the Dead Sea and in its major extension along the western edge of the Lisan Peninsula. This region is within the territorial boundaries of the kingdom of Jordan. In a letter dated April 1, 1999, written to Dr. Carl Wieland, Mr. Knight states that the

N

UMBERS

Lisan marl, as it is known, is a highly laminated lacustrine material comprising calcite (the darker laminations) and aragonite (the white laminations). It also contains variable amounts of gypsum, and pure sulphur nodules. I have samples of each here at home! The Dead Sea bed is mostly dried out west of the Lisan Peninsula, is partially an evaporate deposit, and, of course, wholly such a deposit at depth.

The presence of “sulphur” nodules within the territory of the Jordan bordering the Dead Sea is evidence that the sulfur balls are not confined to Ron Wyatt’s claimed site of Gomorrah, which is within Israeli territory. It will be recalled in the chapter entitled “Sodom and Gomorrah” that Dr. William Shea proposed the region within the Jordanian territory where these sulfur nodes are also to be found. Indeed Mr. Knight indicated in his

221

222

HOLY RELICS

letter that the geological formations on both sides of the Dead Sea are virtually composed of identical materials. Despite Mr. Knight’s strong Biblical convictions, he describes the claim to have found Sodom and Gomorrah as “silly claims.” Before Mr. Knight was aware of Ron Wyatt’s claims he presented a scientific paper to the delegates attending the First International Symposium on Engineering Characteristics of Arid Soils held in London July 6 and 7, 1993. His paper was published in 1994 in the Proceedings of the above Symposium, edited by P. G. Fookes and R. H. G. Parry. In this paper Mr. Knight described the Lisan soils and the laminated material as alternating thin layers of grey silt-size material (calcite) and a white powdery material (aragonite). (page 332)

Calcite is a natural crystalline form of calcium carbonate, while aragonite is an orthorhombic form of the same chemical, calcium carbonate. The term “orthorhombic” simply refers to a different crystalline structure of three mutually perpendicular axes of different lengths. This most assuredly is not ash. Ron Wyatt points to the presence of sulfur balls in these formations. Derek Knight points to them also on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. But surely the presence of these sulfur balls/nodes is evidence of the strongest kind that neither of these sites is that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Surely if rocks and marble were melted with the heat of God’s fire, their temperatures must have reached over 900°C. At such temperatures all sulfur would have evaporated as this temperature is more than twice the boiling point of sulfur. The sulfur would have dissipated as does steam which never precipitates as it cools to again fill the pot from which it evaporated. In a region impregnated with sulfur balls, seekers for the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah should be seeking for the regions devoid of sulfur balls. If, on other grounds, it is evident that the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah have been verified in regions possessing sulfur balls, it would be beholden on the part of the discoverers to ascertain how such sulfur balls reached the site after the destruction of the cities.

43

Noah’s Ark

S YOUNG men we read with no little interest Rene Noorbergen’s book, The Ark File. We also followed for a time Pastor George Vandeman’s expedition to the site of the boat-shaped formation near Dogubayazit, Turkey. In 1959 Captain Lihan Durupinar, an officer of the Turkish army, noticed the boat-like formation while reviewing aerial photographs taken for NATO’s Geodetic Survey of Turkey. A young Turkish lad had first seen it in 1948. The September, 1960 edition of Life magazine in the United States and Pix magazine in Australia popularized the “discovery.” This boat-like formation is said to have been displaced by a mud-slide down the side of a mountain called Akyayla Dagi. Once again we would remind readers that Ron Wyatt did not discover this site. To him can be accorded the record of most persistently and consistently claiming that the formation is the fossilized remains of Noah’s Ark. Many before and some since have generated a similar initial enthusiasm, but this has waned as they have seen the subsequent evidence that indicates that the structure is not composed of fossilized wood. Probably the most extensively distributed rebuttal of Ron Wyatt’s claims concerning Noah’s Ark has been that of Australian geologist, Dr. Andrew Snelling. His article “Amazing ‘Ark’ Expose” in Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol.14 No. 4 pp. 26–38, has been dismissed by many Wyatt supporters on the grounds that professional jealousy motivates Dr. Snelling and the Creation Science Foundation which supports Dr. John Morris’ preferred site for Noah’s ark on Greater Mount Ararat (Ibid., pp. 35,36). One supporter of Ron Wyatt proposed that the Creation Science Institute’s opposition to Wyatt’s claims is based upon the diminished donations in support of Creation Science Institute’s Noah’s Ark project. We believe that such judgment of motives is forbidden by the Scriptures. The assigning of negative motives to those whose views do not concur with our own views is a temptation to us all. This is especially so when we are at a loss to provide convincing rebuttals to their objections. Such assigned motives are only helpful in convincing many of one’s faithful sup-

A

223

224

HOLY RELICS

porters that they need not further investigate the published objections. Usually this line of rebuttal is used when we cannot convincingly refute the objections presented. But such “evidence” will not satisfy those who diligently seek to evaluate the objections presented. Certainly Dr. Snelling has asked some probing questions and offered some weighty evidence which conflict with Ron Wyatt’s presentations. At the very least they do merit serious consideration and investigation. Of course Dr. Snelling is not the lone objector among the fraternity of scientists who are committed creationists. Those who browse the Internet on this subject area will not find their search for such dissenters wanting. While we do not intend to extend our discussion of the Noah’s Ark claims of Ron Wyatt beyond that which would test the patience of our readers, we will select sufficient objections in order to permit the reader to have some basis for understanding why so many creation scientists, eager to confirm the first eleven chapters of Genesis, have turned aside from using the “Ark of Noah” at the Durupinar Site as confirmation of the Biblical Flood account. We believe, without reservation, in the Biblical account of the flood. Every fact of Scripture is true, including Genesis chapters 6–8. We believe that better use can be made of God’s means by spreading the words of Scripture which alone will convict the soul. The discovery of Noah’s Ark would bring satisfaction and, no doubt, joy to many committed Christians, but those who will not believe though one were raised from the dead, would remain unmoved. Only the love of Jesus under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit converts souls. One matter which does engender real concern is the misapplication of authoritative documentation for one’s “discoveries” when the document denies, or at least does not confirm, the claim made. We have already described the serious misuse of the British Admiralty charts as evidence for the “bridge” across the Gulf of Aqaba. We stand amazed that when an authority is misquoted, rather than to discount the works of the one who so misquotes, some will cast scorn upon the authority which only a short time previously had been lauded as of sufficient merit to be used as strong evidence in support of the claim. We noticed this phenomenon in respect of the British Admiralty disclaimers. We would urge that full weight be given to the evaluation of the misuse of authorities. It underlines a serious flaw in the evidence of the speaker or author and even, if deliberate, his integrity. We do grant that on occasions all can make such mistakes, inadvertently and in all good faith. But never should our ire be misdirected against the misquoted authority. Yet when

Noah’s Ark

225

the misuse of sources is pointed out, too often we hear retorts such as, “Well what do you expect? They are only saying that because they are not Christians.” Even if such denials of fact are motivated by a desire to deny all evidence likely to confirm Bible events, this does not excuse one for using the words of such authorities contrary to their statements. Dr. Andrew Snelling rightly objects to the use made of the Galbraith Laboratory findings by Ron Wyatt. However, Dr. Snelling would have done a lot better if he had documented more rigorously his claims. Fortunately we are able to produce documentation for that which Dr. Snelling asserted in respect of the tests undertaken at the Galbraith Laboratory in Knoxville, Tennessee. Without such documentation we would not report Dr. Snelling’s complaint. There is no question that the Wyatt Archaeological Research did promote the Galbraith Laboratory findings as evidence of fossilized wood: Fossilized deck timber recovered from the site proved to be laminated wood. On the day the site was declared a national park, Mr. Wyatt was demonstrating subsurface radar scanning techniques to the Governor of the Agri District, Mr. Sevker Ekinci. As Ron explained the printout from the radar, he noticed that a solid object was indicated near the surface. The Governor ordered it to be excavated. As TRT (Turkish Radio and Television) filmed the event, a piece of fossilized hand-hewn wood, about 45cm long was recovered. It appeared to be a piece of deck planking. To confirm this, the Governor requested Ron to arrange for laboratory analysis in the US. Testing was carried out by Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, Tennessee, and the results showed the sample to contain over 0.7% organic carbon, consistent with fossilized wood. The specimen was once living matter. Later thin sections were cut from the sample for microscopic examination. To everyone’s surprise, the wood consisted of three layers. It was laminated wood! The cementing substance used was resin made from tree sap. Never before has petrified wood been found that was laminated. This revealed that the construction methods used by Noah in building the ark included three-ply lamination. (International Discover Times, p. 2)

Dr. Snelling’s comments on this claim follow: No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these “trainloads” of petrified wood. Geologist Dr.

226

HOLY RELICS

Bayraktutan (see later) has collected one or two small fragments of semi-petrified wood which in his opinion have flowed on to the site within the mud from elsewhere. He confirms that none of the regular rock types of the site are petrified wood. Not one of the other scientists (including geologists familiar with petrified wood) has ever once seen any. Yet Wyatt continues to show untrained people samples of what he claims is petrified wood from the site. His prize sample, reportedly dug up in the presence of the Governor of the Turkish province of Agri, is not only claimed to be petrified wood, but alleged to be “laminated” and “deck timber.” [Dr. Alan] Roberts too has made much of this sample, being photographed with it, and claiming that this “petrified laminated timber” is of major significance, since the Ark was made of gopher wood which, he says, could mean laminated wood.

Both Wyatt and Roberts claim support for the identification of this sample by citing Galbraith Laboratories of Tennessee, yet the laboratory assay certificate shows that they only analyzed for three elements—calcium, iron and carbon—no basis at all for calling the sample petrified wood! When telephoned, the laboratory was adamant that they were not asked to give an opinion on what the object was and they were unable to do so. (Creation Ex Nihilo Vol.14, Nov. p. 31) In fairness to Wyatt’s position as reported above in the International Discovery Times it is not stated that he claimed the Laboratory concluded that the specimen was wood. Of course it must be remembered that the International Discovery Times was written in 1998, well after Dr. Snelling’s article was known to Ron Wyatt and thus there may have been a little more care taken than in the Wyatt report of the Galbraith Laboratory findings from which Dr. Snelling quoted. But Snelling’s lack of documentation does devalue his objection in this matter. Nevertheless the International Discovery Times is also amiss in providing no documented evidence of the crucial claim that the material from the Ark-like formation was laminated petrified wood. It was certainly most convenient that the “laminated timber” was discovered in front of a crowd, radio and television and the District Governor. Andrew Snelling cites anecdotal evidence that Wyatt did make allegedly fabricated claims concerning the scientific verification of the “three layered laminated fossilized wood”: A Christian who was researching these claims writes (in a document forming part of the Ark Search’s “written evidence”) that when he was shown this “petrified laminated wood” sample, Wyatt told him

Noah’s Ark

227

that he had had it analyzed by Galbraith Laboratories and the tests indicated that it was silicate replacement (that is, the wood had been replaced by a silicon compound). This cannot be truthful, since the laboratory report, also in Ark Search’s possession, shows that silicon was not even analyzed for by Galbraith! No future compliance by Wyatt to have the sample sectioned is feasible without the safeguard of eye-witnesses who are familiar with this so-called “laminated” “pecky cypress.” On the other hand, there are lots of chunks of basalt on the site and buried in the surface mudflow material. Those people we know of with a trained eye who have seen this particular sample of Wyatt’s have all identified it as basalt. Furthermore, their testimony, plus photographic assessment and microscopic examination of basalt samples from the site, strongly suggest the alleged “petrified adhesive” is actually calcite veining [calcium carbonate crystals—see discussion of similar veining in chapter entitled, “The Sulfur Balls—Evidence Against the Gomorrah site”]. (Creation Ex Nihilo, op.cit., p. 31)

Since Ron Wyatt has not produced independent verification of the threelayered laminated fossilized wood we can view his claim concerning the laminated fossilized wood with a measure of skepticism. It should surely be possible to quickly settle this dispute. All Ron has to do is to submit his specimen of “layered fossilized wood” to objective testing. Then once and for all it would be determined whether or not the specimen is fossilized wood or basalt rock and if the “petrified adhesive” is or is not calcite veining. Ron Wyatt’s reluctance to submit his specimens to such rigorous testing does not fill us with confidence. Years have now rolled by. He has had ample time to satisfy even the most skeptical scholar and close the mouths of the doubters.

44

Dramatic Headline

headline, “Government Confirms: ‘This is Noah’s Ark’” (International Discovery Times, p. 1) is eye-catching. But we are disappointed that once more we discover no documentation of the startling assertion. The article states:

T

HE

On June 20, 1987, the Turkish Government established the new “Noah’s Ark National Park,” following confirmation by a Government commission of the investigative work on a site by the American Ronald E. Wyatt. The site was first brought to attention in the late 1950s after high altitude aerial survey photographs revealed a boat-shaped structure in the mountains of the Ararat region. Although initially dismissed by some, Ron Wyatt and others undertook extensive investigative work on the site for nearly a decade. Employing such methods as subsurface interface radar scanning, metal detection surveys, core-drilling, etc., the results were spectacular. Buried there at 6,300 feet altitude were the physical remains of an enormous man-made structure. Professor Dr. Ekrem Akurgal, considered by many to be “The Dean of Turkish Archaeologists”, stated “At any rate, it is a ship, an ancient ship ... It must be preserved ...” Wyatt’s results led to serious interest by Turkish scientists and archaeologists, and ultimately a Government commission convened to consider all the evidence. The official conclusion was the site did indeed contain the remains of the legendary ark of Noah. As a result, a new National Park was established. Naturally, some find the conclusion of the Turkish Government hard to accept, but the evidence is growing. This evidence Wyatt will be sharing on his visit to Australia.

228

Dramatic Headline

229

Andrew Snelling, who reports first-hand evidence concerning this claim, casts quite a different light upon this headline. It merits the recording of Snelling’s report in full. The Turkish authorities really began to get interested in this site after the Wyatt team’s August 1985 work, when the team left the site marked out with bright yellow plastic tape in square grids. Evidently, three independent research teams of Turkish scientists were then sent to the site in September 1985. Some digging was done, but no artifacts were found. Two of the teams were from Ankara, and both returned with a negative report. The third team was led by Dr. Salih Bayraktutan, a geologist at Ataturk University in Erzurum, Agri Province, the same province in which the site is found. His research team, while not declaring the formation to be a boat, was far more cautious so as to keep its options open, and with good reason. The Governor of Agri Province, Sevkit Ekinci, had by this time set up a local Noah’s Ark Commission with himself as chairman, and made up of Bayraktutan, the regional director of the central government’s Department of Forests, and three other prominent people from Agri Province. Bayraktutan is a devout Muslim who is aware that Noah’s Ark is also mentioned in the Koran. As both a member of the Governor’s commission and as the chief research scientist appointed by that commission, he has repeatedly investigated the site, not only in 1985, but also in 1987 and 1988. He has personally informed me most emphatically that as far as he is aware the Governor’s Noah’s Ark Commission has never declared the site to definitely be Noah’s Ark or a boat. Instead, the Commission has said that the site has historical value and should be protected in case there is some object in the mud of archaeological significance. Bayraktutan believes that there are features of the site that still need to be investigated so as to settle the claims and counter claims once and for all. Nevertheless, while he knows Wyatt personally, he is at pains to dissociate himself from almost all of Wyatt’s claims about the site, expressing grave doubts about the claimed artifacts and about how some of Wyatt’s “evidence” actually found its way on to the site. Wyatt and Roberts, in defense of this claim that the special Turkish Commission has concluded this site to be a boat, have produced a single newspaper clipping which says that “a Turkish research team has concurred with a Madison explorer’s claim that the remains of Noah’s Ark are buried on a barren mountainside in Eastern Turkey.” Two minor Turkish Government officials are referred to as saying the

230

HOLY RELICS

research team’s report agrees with Wyatt that it is the Ark, and Department of Ministry and Tourism officials were discussing the possibility of declaring a National Park. However, the same official also said that “No official confirmation has been forwarded to me yet.” Interestingly, this report appeared in a local newspaper of Madison, Tennessee, which is Wyatt’s hometown. Most of the details in the report appear to have come from Wyatt himself. Neither Wyatt, it seems, nor Roberts when queried, has been able to produce copies of reports from any Turkish research team or Government Commission, which even if they were in Turkish could easily be translated. Roberts certainly had not known, before going public with lectures and literature, of the existence of a 1987 research report in English by Bayraktutan and Baumgardner on their geophysical surveys that year. It comes as no surprise that the Governor of Agri, reputed to be a friend of Wyatt, was featured on Wyatt’s video as conducting a ceremony on the site to officially declare a National Park and, according to the narrator, announce the Turkish Government’s agreement with Wyatt’s findings that the site contains the remains of Noah’s Ark. This is the same Governor who chairs the commission and who had the visitors’ center built overlooking the site, as well as a road sign erected directing tourists to the site. The same Governor has consistently vetoed efforts to undertake a dig into the site to settle the issue once and for all (see later). As if to add credence to his claims of Turkish Government support for the site, Wyatt’s video says that an “eight lane multi-million dollar highway is near completion which leads to the site.” The pictures shown are of a highway into neighboring Iran, and not the one-lane trail of dirt, rock and mud which tortuously winds its way from the village of Telceker to the site about four kilometers away. There is no eight-lane highway to the site or close to it. Wyatt’s video ends: “Because these priceless remains lie open and unguarded, the government hasn’t made a major announcement yet, but hopefully it won’t be much longer before they’re all secured.” Years later, we are still awaiting that “major announcement,” and the Turkish officialdom that has the power to secure the site and its claimed remains have not done so, nor do they seem willing for outsiders to assist them. One is not surprised to hear that investigators visiting the site in November 1989 found the road sign removed, the visitors’ center not operating, and sheep grazing on the site as they used to before all the excitement! (Creation Ex Nihilo, op.cit., pp. 34,35)

Dramatic Headline

231

Once more it would seem that Ron Wyatt’s video report is open to the charge of hyperbole. The eight-lane highway hardly leads to the site, nor was it constructed for that purpose. It is an international highway. We would mention that Snelling’s information of Ron Wyatt’s claims in relation to Noah’s Ark was largely based upon Ron Wyatt’s book Discovered: Noah’s Ark, World Wide Bible Society, 1989, Nashville. (See chapter entitled “Kindly Words” concerning attacks on Dr. Snelling’s integrity). We would remind the readers that nations are not immune to using myth to their tourist-attracting advantage. The Loch Ness monster in Scotland and the myths of King Arthur in the Lakes District of northwestern England are typical examples. Turkish governments, too, have an eye to the tourist dollar. Upon the Internet a growing number of objections, some important, are to be found. We will not weary the reader with further detail apart from a brief summary of a few of these important evidences which Ron Wyatt needs to address. 1. The Iron Bracket Wyatt claims to have located is composed of limonite [iron oxide—a widely occurring substance] granules enclosed in a matrix of calcite [calcium carbonate]—Professor Lorence Collins, Department of Geological Sciences, California State University Northbridge. 2. The microscopic studies and photoanalyses demonstrate that “Noah’s Ark” is a natural rock formation—Professor Lorence Collins. 3. Geophysical surveys in 1987 and core drilling in 1988 indicated the claimed “petrified wood” is igneous rock of basaltic composition—Dr. John Baumgardner, a creationist geophysicist. Dr. Baumgardner was an important member of these survey teams. [Note—Basalt is a dense, dark volcanic rock composed chiefly of plagioclase,—which consists of mixtures of sodium, calcium and aluminium silicates—augite,—a mineral containing aluminium, iron and magnesium—and magnetite—and ferric oxide.] 4. There are no rivets in the structure—Dr. John Baumgardner. 5. Ron Wyatt has no working knowledge of ground penetrating radar and how to operate the system or interpret the radar data —Thomas J. Fenner, Geophysicist who states he tried to train Ron Wyatt in this technology and was a senior member of the 1987 and 1988 survey teams.

232 6.

HOLY RELICS

The tops of the various mountains in the Ararat region did not become visible for 75 days after the Ark rested on solid ground. Genesis 8:4—6 records the Ark rested on the 17th day of the Seventh Month and the tops of the mountains became visible on the first day of the Tenth Month. This is a period of 75 days. The Durupinar site is almost 10,000 feet lower than the peak of Agri Dagh (The Greater Mount Ararat). Jonathan Gray claims that the Ark slid down from an elevation 1,000 feet higher than the present Durupinar site. (Jonathan Gray, The Ark Conspiracy, p. 153) Thus the Ark, if Wyatt is correct, would have rested about 9,000 feet below the tallest mountain in the region. If the Ark rested at the site designated by Ron Wyatt and none of the peaks were visible for a further 75 days, we would have to conclude that the Ark during this period was under about 9,000 feet of water. It would further have to wait there an undetermined period until the water fell from over 16,000 feet above sea level, down to about 7,000 feet when the Ark would have emerged from the water. Of course such a scenario is implausible. Genesis 8:4—6 is a grounds for concluding that Greater Mount Ararat is the more likely site for the resting of the Ark. 7. The “Anchor Stones” are unrelated to the Ark. They are artifacts which are scattered throughout Armenia—Dr. Terian, an Armenian Professor at the SDA Theological Seminary. 8. I recently read Ron Wyatt’s book, DISCOVERED; NOAH’S ARK, and was appalled. It is one of the most disgusting books I have read. Naturally I have no problem with the discovery of Noah’s ark, but the multitude of inaccuracies and errors certainly turns one off who has some information. Even the uninformed person should be suspicious when one individual claims to have found so many important artifacts that others have never found after years of diligent search. Concerning growth rings: Wyatt refers to extinct giant club mosses that do not have growth rings as evidence that preflood trees do not have growth rings. The giant club moss, Sigillaria, could be compared with papaya, or banana or other fastgrowing trees with pulpy wood. Yes, it does not have growth rings but that is not evidence for preflood conifers or deciduous trees. They do have good growth rings. I have spent years studying petrified trees in various areas of North America, in Patagonia, and in Australia. They have growth rings if they are trees that normally are expected to have rings.

Dramatic Headline

233

He is mistaken concerning frozen mammoths—p. 73. He accepts dinosaur tracks and human footprints together in Texas (p. 74) and is not aware that creation groups have had to recant on that case when the so-called human footprints eroded into dinosaur tracks. Apparently he does not accept dinosaurs as real (p. 77). According to his book, glaciers were produced by the Flood waters. However, glaciers are not frozen water but compacted snow. The seasonal layering of the snow clearly can be seen when the glacier is drilled. His notion that there were post-flood giants because they ate preflood mammoths is so strange that it is hardly worth comment. If that were true, humans who eat mostly fish or fowl should be smaller than those who eat beef! (Harold G. Coffin letter to David Merling, Jan 13, 1993) 9. By November 1989 the Visitor’s Center at the “Ark” site was closed, sheep were grazing on the Ark site. The Visitors’ Center Sign was removed—Dr. John Morris, Professor of Geology, Institute for Creation Research. While we are surprised and offended by the harsh language used by Dr. Harold Coffin in his dismissal of Ron Wyatt’s book, Discovered: Noah’s Ark, we would suggest that Ron has not proven his case to the satisfaction of those who strive for genuine evidence. Wyatt’s presentations no doubt touch a popular chord in the heartstrings of many earnest Christians. His claims are those which numbers of Christians long to hear. Many who are normally very diligent in their demand for evidence, have lowered their standard of evidence to meet their desires and have accepted alibi after alibi, implausible though each may be. Alibis are like mathematical fractions, the more you multiply them, the lower is their value. In regard to Ron Wyatt’s discoveries the “mathematical fraction” is now infinitesimally small. One observation that a number have made is that eight such identical [boat] formations occupy nearby sites (Letter written by Randall Price to Mr. Pinkoski dated Feb. 27, 1995 and placed on the Internet). Mr. Price, tongue in cheek, adds: If this was the Ark, then it was part of a fleet (Ibid).

The presence of these other boat formations certainly demand explanation. These “boats” are of various sizes. Their presence seriously discounts the claims that Ron Wyatt’s “Ark” was Noah’s. Much has been made of the presence of the “Anchor Stones” in a line leading to the “Ark Formation.” Concerns that these were Anchor Stones

234

HOLY RELICS

must be seriously studied before accepting Ron Wyatt’s assertion. Three such concerns arise. First, as Professor Teslan, an ethnic Armenian Professor at Andrews University, testifies, these “Anchor Stones” are also scattered throughout nearby Armenia. Second, the stones are said to be in a line leading up to the claimed Noah’s Ark formation. If this is so then they would seem to be in an inappropriate position since we are also told that the “Ark” landed 1,000 feet higher up the mountain side and only slid down to its present site in a mudslide. Surely the “Anchor Stones” could not all have slidden in the same mud-flow and again have been aligned with the “Ark.” Third, geological evidence indicates that the “Anchor Stones” were quarried out of rock in the region of the claimed “Noah’s Ark.” Since the earth surface was dramatically altered at the time of the Flood, such a finding would strongly indicate that these “Anchor Stones” were crafted after the Flood and not prior to it. That they possess Christian carvings upon them would indicate that they were of significance to and constructed by early Christians in the vicinity of modern day Armenia. Long before Ron Wyatt claimed the Ark of Noah, one by one Christian enthusiasts had to admit their original enthusiasm was misplaced as evidence demonstrated the “Ark” was rock. It is time, possibly, for Ron Wyatt to follow suit.

45

Ron Wyatt Did Not Discover Noah’s Ark

N HIS videotape, Presentation of Discoveries, shown widely in his meetings, Ron Wyatt states that the Turkish Government has named him as the discoverer of Noah’s Ark. This is a most curious decision since Ron Wyatt certainly did not discover Noah’s Ark, if indeed it has been discovered at all. If the formation Ron Wyatt claims to be Noah’s Ark is to be designated as having a discoverer, this honor surely should be accorded to Turkish Captain Ilhan Durupinar, who on September 3, 1959 identified the formation on a NATO survey photograph. Ron Wyatt did not visit the site until 18 years later. In the intervening period many others had preceded Ron Wyatt in examining the site.

I

Many people claimed it [the Durupinar site] was Noah’s Ark. Several land expeditions during the past ten years have investigated the object and have discovered it to be nothing more than a natural land formation. (Dave Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier Inc., In Search of Noah’s Ark, Sun Classic Books, 1976 description of photograph No. 26 appearing between pp. 106 and 107).

Now there are three matters in this statement to which we must draw the attention of the reader. First, this book was published one year before Ron Wyatt’s first visit to the site in 1977. Second, it does confirm the fact that Ron Wyatt was a Johnny-come-lately to the site. Thus in no manner could he be rightly accorded the honor of having discovered “Noah’s Ark.” Third, the continued claims that Ron Wyatt’s “discovery” remains unacknowledged by Biblical archaeologists is based upon competitive jealousy is refuted by investigation. Numbers of excited Christians had visited the site before Ron Wyatt’s first visit, and one by one they acknowledged that the evidence did not support their initial hopes. Thus conclusions were not based upon jealousy of Ron Wyatt, for he could not have laid claim to any discoveries prior to his first visit. Therefore the quoted 1976 article is most

235

236

HOLY RELICS

important in laying to rest Ron Wyatt’s claim to have discovered Noah’s Ark and that jealousy motivates those who reject his claim. One team of investigators who preceded Ron Wyatt to the site was led by American Seventh-day Adventist tele-evangelist, Pastor George Vandeman, the speaker for the television series “It Is Written.” We both know Pastor Vandeman personally. Indeed, during Pastor Vandeman’s 1976 visit to Australia he invited Russell to present health lectures at his presentations in the states of Victoria and Tasmania. We had first met Pastor Vandeman as young students at Avondale College in 1951. Pastor Vandeman gathered an impressive team about him. Among those in the team were Dr. Arthur Brandenburger, Professor of Photogrammetry at Ohio State University in Columbia, Rene Noorbergen, a veteran newsman, Dr. Siegfried Horn, Professor of Archaeology at Andrews University, Michigan, Captain Ilhan Durupinar, the discoverer of the site, Wilbur A. Bishop, one of the financiers of the expedition, Major Bayhal, a Turkish cavalry officer in charge of 15 foot soldiers sent to protect the group, and Hal J. Thomsen, research assistant. By June 7, 1960, seventeen years prior to Ron Wyatt’s initial visit to the site, this group had concluded that the boat-like formation was not Noah’s Ark. Two days later in Ankara, the capital city of Turkey, the expedition leaders issued the following press release— Scientific Team Investigates Boat-Shaped Object in Eastern Turkey With full permission of the new government, an investigative team sent to eastern Turkey by the Archaeological Research Foundation of Washington, DC, has just returned to Ankara after completing its study of a large boat-shaped object that appeared in an aerial photograph made by the Turkish army. The team under the leadership of Mr. George Vandeman, located the object twenty miles south of Mount Ararat near the Iranian border. Captain Ilhan Durupinar of the Turkish cartographic service, who originally discovered the peculiar shape in the aerial photograph, was a member of the group. Dr. Brandenburger, a photogrammetry expert of Ohio State University, foremost member of the team, stated ‘Our measurements in the field verify our laboratory findings. In my opinion further study of this peculiar symmetrical phenomenon should be made by an expert in tectonics.’

Ron Wyatt Did Not Discover Noah’s Ark

237

The team found a landslide on a gentle mountain slope. Earthen walls within the slide were apparently pushed into the shape of a boat. There were no visible archaeological remains. Mr. Vandeman concluded that, “The mission was scientifically successful. We located the site and made our measurements. We identified the supposed object and ascertained to our satisfaction that it was a freak of nature and not man-made. It is of no further interest to us, so we shall not send an archaeological expedition into the area.” (Rene Noorbergen, The Ark File, Pacific Press, 1974, page 128)

In his autobiography, My Dream, Pastor Vandeman reflected, speaking of this expedition, It was soon discovered that the site did not prove to be of significant value. The scientists carefully dug out a spot along the edge but this test yielded nothing of particular interest. (p. 115)

Of course this expedition did not finalize the matter. Numerous other expeditions have followed the same trail as did Vandeman. Almost all set out with high expectations and almost all were forced to conclude that the findings, first made by the Vandeman team, were valid. The site did not contain Noah’s Ark. In the first half of the 1990s (after 1992 and prior to 1995) the California cable television station, TLC [The Love Channel], aired an extensive documentary on such an expedition, led by David Fasold, an expert in recovery of sunken vessels. Dr. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist from the Los Alamos Research Laboratory in New Mexico, was a significant member of the team. This investigation, which commenced in 1986 and extended to three expeditions to the site, is significant in that Ron Wyatt was one of the team members. This expedition certainly did introduce very sophisticated detection devices. Initial hopes were high when ground-penetrating radar scans appeared to support patterns of metal previously indicated by metal detectors. But subsequent refining techniques lent support to Dr. Baumgardner’s earlier observation that It’s clear . . . from the state of preservation that there is very little tangible evidence. (TLC Video broadcast)

As the radar expert, Tom Fenner of Geophysical Survey Systems Incorporated, day after day examined the radar readings he concluded that There’s such a bunch of noise [interference in the graphical recording]. (Ibid.)

238

HOLY RELICS

Three days of frustration passed with continued non-significant interference patterns detected in the radar recordings. Core-drillings of the object were undertaken. Fasold admitted that Each person was beginning to read the core-drilling results differently. Dreams and hard facts were continuing to conflict. (Ibid.)

Eventually a dispirited Dr. Baumgardner was forced to conclude that The data doesn’t remotely suggest that this is a man-made structure. (Ibid.)

It is of no little significance that subsequent to these investigations using highly sophisticated equipment, both David Fasold and John Baumgardner joined the growing list of men who had gone forth with high expectations that they would confirm the presence of Noah’s Ark, but were forced on the basis of evidence to conclude that the boat-like object was a geological, not an archaeological, formation. It seems to us to have been rather unkind of Jonathan Gray to impugn the integrity of these men by suggesting that Fasold altered his opinion in order to receive a television appearance fee and Baumgardner did so in order to retain his position at Los Alamos. The TLC video documentary was significant in a number of ways. It illustrated the fact that ego was not absent. On one occasion during the Fasold expedition, circumstances brought Dr. Eryl Cummings, a veteran searcher for Noah’s Ark near the peak of the Greater Mount Ararat site and American astronaut, James Irwin, to the Durupinar site. The cameras recorded a portion of a less-than-convivial discussion between the two groups as they debated the merits of the sites as espoused by each. Fasold’s strident objections to the Mount Ararat site and stout defense of the Durupinar site indicates that it must have taken no little loss of self-esteem for Fasold finally to admit that the object at the Durupinar site was a natural formation. (L. G. Collins and D. F. Fasold, “Bogus Noah’s Ark from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure”—Internet) Also of significance was the fact that Ron Wyatt clearly was not a major member of these expeditions. He did not appear to lead them. He did not possess the technical knowledge nor skills to undertake the various scanning operations despite having undertaken a course in scanning techniques in 1986. Consistently others, qualified in these areas, were noted operating these sophisticated machines. The setting out of the long tapes used as markers on the boat-like object was seen to be undertaken by others rather than Ron Wyatt. Photographs of these tapes criss-crossing the site are seen in books claiming Ron Wyatt’s discoveries. Ron Wyatt was present, that is true, but in no manner did he appear to play a major role in these expeditions. Yet the accounts which we have read emanating from

Ron Wyatt Did Not Discover Noah’s Ark

239

Wyatt and Gray present a quite different picture. Ron Wyatt, quite understandably, was very concerned when rifle sniping occurred nearby. David Fasold commented— Wyatt started getting real spooked looking along the road for soldiers. He was so scared he couldn’t even focus on anything. He kept looking back on the road. (TLC Television program)

It was here that Wyatt was directly recorded as using a very crude expression as he urged the team to escape from the site.

46

The Mount Ararat Site

it not be forgotten that many other investigators, going back to the nineteenth century, have claimed to have discovered Noah’s Ark on top of Mount Ararat. Each provides “impelling evidence” including, in some cases, pieces of wood collected at the site. More recently sophisticated techniques have also been used to “verify” the finding of the Ark near the summit of Mount Ararat. The Biblical account of Genesis 8:4–6 can incline one to the Greater Mount Ararat site (see chapter entitled, “Dramatic Headline”). We add that we doubt that any part of Noah’s Ark has survived the ravishes of over 4,000 years, unless it was entirely under ice. If Mount Ararat were heavily promoted as the site of Noah’s Ark there is no doubt it could have been done with just as much “evidence” as was produced for the Durupinar site, perhaps more. And quite likely many of those who now accept his claims for the Durupinar site would have equally and just as avidly accepted Mount Ararat as the site, for one would have been able to proclaim that

L

ET

Scientists have used satellites, computers and powerful cameras to pinpoint the Ark’s exact location on Mount Ararat. (Dave Balsiger and Charles L. Sellier Inc., op. cit., back cover)

The statement quoted above refers to the Mount Ararat site. The same authors report that During a 1966 Archaeological Research Expedition to Mt. Ararat, 2300 35-mm slides were taken. Two years later, ark-eologist Eryl Cummings discovered a boat-like object in one of the slides. (Ibid., photograph 27 between pages 106 and 107)

Further, one could have produced photographs taken by the Earth Resources Observation Satellite Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which show an electronic computer data analysis of the reflective light patterns around the suspected Ark location on Mt. Ararat. The center reported that

240

The Mount Ararat Site

241

The single illuminated area indicates that this particular site has a reflective light pattern different from any of the surrounding areas. This analysis has confirmed for many ark-eologists the exact location of Noah’s Ark. (Ibid., photograph 30 between pages 106 and 107)

Further, Robert Ripley of “Believe it or Not” fame who has been claimed to have “never been proved wrong” (surely a statement of hyperbole), . . . found the authentic tomb of Noah in the Lebanon Mountains of the Holy Land near the ancient city of Damascus. It is a very sacred spot. (Ibid., photograph 11 between pages 106 and 107)

Also Robert Ripley discovered that . . . the anchors from Noah’s Ark [were] in Kairouan, Tunisia. Ripley says that these very anchors were used in tying the Ark to Mt. Ararat. No one has yet been able to refute his claim or offer any alternative explanation for the anchors. (Ibid., photograph 12 between pages 106 and 107)

Now, of course, we are not here promoting any of these claims. We note that Balsiger and Sellier in the last claim are falling into the same trap as some Wyatt supporters in placing the onus upon others to disprove Robert Ripley’s claim that he has found the anchors of the Ark. Rather it was Ripley’s responsibility to produce evidence to verify his unlikely claim. However, we do ask the reader to ponder the fact that there are many others who can produce “evidence,” some of which seems factual, which convinces many sincere people that they have discovered Noah’s Ark in another location. These people were not in any way attempting to counter the Wyatt claims for we have specifically quoted from books published prior to Ron Wyatt’s ever having ever set foot in Turkey. There are counter claims, made prior to Ron Wyatt’s claim that the site of the Tower of Babel is in Turkey, that assert that the Tower of Babel stood where today stands . . . the town of Borsippa, a few miles south of the ruins of Babylon in Iraq. Although it is the roost for pigeons today, it does attest to the historical accuracy of the Bible. (Ibid., photograph 10 between pages 106 and 107)

For all these claims superficially plausible “evidence” has been advanced. If Ron Wyatt had chosen to support these claims rather than the ones he has, he would have been able to convince many of their veracity just as others have done in the past. We have reviewed the rather vague photographs of French Explorer Fernand Navarra who shot photographs at the bottom of a 35 foot crevasse on Mt. Ararat on July 5, 1955. He claimed

242

HOLY RELICS

that the photographs were poor because of the dim light present, but that the objects in his photograph were beams from Noah’s Ark. (Ibid., photograph 19 between pages 106 and 107) On the following day Navarra posed with a piece of wood claimed to be from Noah’s Ark and also planking from the Ark. (Ibid., photographs 22 and 23) Further still . . . a close up of Mt. Ararat was taken by an Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS). The arrow [imposed on the photograph] points to an area where Dr. John Warwick Montgommery says there is a peculiar rectangular shape, foreign to the mountains. In newspaper stories released by [United States] Senator Frank E. Moss, Dr. Montgommery speculates that the rectangle is Noah’s Ark. (Ibid., photograph 29)

Dr. Montgommery’s “discovery” gained credence despite the fact that most NASA officials contended that ERTS was not capable of photographing something as small as the Ark. We also notice that the term “ark-eologist” was coined before Ron Wyatt ever entered the precincts of the Durupinar site. Sadly Rene Noorbergen, probably correctly asserted that Too often a yearning for personal glory seems to have been the motivating factor in all too many of the searches for the ark. (Rene Noorbergen, The Ark File, p. 205)

How near each one of us needs to be to the Lord in these last days lest any of us seek personal glory rather than making the theme of our lives, “Give glory to Him” (Revelation 14:7). We must be conscientious every day in our own lives to promote Christ’s glory and not our own. In this chapter we have documented beyond dispute that Ron Wyatt did not discover the Durupinar site claimed to be Noah’s Ark. He came on the scene rather late and when he did so he was very much a secondary player in the 1987 and other expeditions. We have documented other claims of having “discovered” the Ark of Noah on Mount Ararat. While we are in no way promoting this site anymore than the Durupinar site, we do point out that Ron Wyatt could well have produced eye-witness reports, scientific evidence and Turkish Government support for the Mount Ararat site, at least or perhaps even more compelling than that of the Durupinar site. Yet Ron Wyatt and his supporters, the above facts not withstanding, are zealous in their claim that he deserves the honor of being designated as the discoverer of Noah’s Ark. Jonathan Gray thus complains that

The Mount Ararat Site

243

Steffins called a news conference [in 1984] and, displaying some bags of specimens, claimed for himself the discovery of “Noah’s Ark.” (Jonathan Gray, The Ark Conspiracy, p. 31).

Just who Steffins was we are not informed. No doubt he had no more and no less right to claim to be the discoverer of Noah’s Ark than does Ron Wyatt. Jonathan Gray goes to some lengths to expose the claims that Noah’s Ark was discovered on Mount Ararat as bogus. He relates claims that one “discoverer” of the Ark on the Mount (Navarra) carried wood from the bottom of Mount Ararat and planted it up at 14,000 feet and then claimed the wood came from the ark. Gray also asserts that Charles Sellier Jnr. (Gray misspells the name—Ibid., p. 21,22) requested Elfred Lee to paint a likeness of the Ark on a photograph of Mount Ararat and that in the film “In Search of Noah’s Ark” he used small models placed in a Utah desert to depict the Ark. Whether these charges are correct or not, we do not propose to decide. But they do remind us that others have claimed that some of Wyatt’s discoveries are also bogus. One such example is the “discovery” of rivets. Here again we neither accept nor reject the charge. We should, however, be wary of unsubstantiated claims, which have not been submitted to objective analysis and dating techniques. Further, the claimed subterfuge in the making of the film, “In Search of Noah’s Ark” reminds us of how unsubstantial video presentations may be. Some of the most dramatic scenes in Hollywood films are based upon small models filmed in such a manner as to deceive the eye of the viewer. When God’s Word is threatened by a “discovery,” even when any form of photographic evidence is presented, Beware! A couple of years ago Scientific American produced a computer-generated photograph of Abraham Lincoln dancing with Marilyn Monroe! If one had no sense of history he might be inclined to accept the photograph as a true record of an actual event. So-called experts found it impossible to identify the photograph as bogus. Had Abraham and Marilyn been alive contemporaneously, the deception would have been complete.

47

Another Published Claim at the Durupinar Site

HE Ancient American magazine, Vol. 4, No. 26, 1999 published an article authored by David Allen Deal, entitled “The Latest on the Lost City of Noah.” Ancient American, which is published in Wisconsin, is not a well-known magazine. David Deal reported on an International Workshop/Conference held in Turkey October 5–9, 1998. Participants from three nations, Azerbaijan, Turkey and the United States attended. In the article David Deal refers confidently to his “discoveries” concerning the Ark of Noah.

T

I stated, in answer to some of the more vocal critics of last year’s article, “We are indeed able to examine this site (its no face on Mars), and with the official Turkish approval, are going ahead with scientific inquiry . . . even though we needed military escort, because the zone is extremely politically sensitive and dangerous, it was incumbent on me to get to the site as soon as possible, with the Turkish authorities, to prove the site is, as claimed. We will now, allow professional archaeologists to do their work. This site, in the next few years, will prove to be one of the major archaeological discoveries of all time. Flood exponents will have something very tangible to deal with now. They need not look for the ark of Noah on Mt. Ararat in shadows and basaltic out-croppings any longer, it’s simply not there.” For the geologists, it will be interesting to note that the Ark structure is not a “plunging geo-syncline” as Professor Dr. Ian Plimer head of Melborne [sic] University in Australia [In fact he is a professor at Melbourne University] had thought before he personally investigated the site three years ago. He discovered that the structure is not composed of rock at all, but rather soils and tiny cobbles of local origin, bound together in a blackened mixture (presumably carbon from degraded bitumen used originally to seal the Ark). The structure is not the Ark itself, but a mold of where the Ark previously existed

244

Another Published Claim at the Durupinar Site

245

before it dissolved and disintegrated over thousands of years exposure to the oxygen rich atmosphere. Retired Professor Lawrence G. Collins of California State University at Northridge, claimed in a journal that the structure was a “doubly plunging Geo-Syncline.” However Dr. Collins has never been on the site, and agreed that it is probably as Dr. Plimer claimed, “an allochthonous block” [a geological deposit formed at a distance from its present location] having slid downhill from above, thus refuting the geo-syncline claims he made in his paper. Professor Salih Bayraktutan of the Geology Department of Atatark University in Erzurum, who has examined the site in detail, has claimed that the structure is not a naturally occurring one in the slightest. It is a manmade structure. He now agrees that it has, in the distant past, slid downhill from above. It is apparently an allochthonous boat! Please explain to us in geological terms Dr Plimer or Professor Collins . . . How a 538' [foot] long perfect boat shaped object can appear as impressions in two places two kilometers apart and separated by 1,200 feet of elevation and connected by a downhill sluice? Where else on the earth will you find such a combination? Why does it occur on the very place that ancient writers claim the Ark landed? Perhaps geologists will always refer to large, beached, eliptical boats as geosynclines. (Ibid., ellipsis in original)

Now this claim, which has been seen by some of those who have accepted Ron Wyatt’s claims as verification of them, does in fact, contradict them. Ron Wyatt claims that he has demonstrated that the boat-like structure is petrified laminated wood. David Deal claims that they are simply molds and that the wood of Noah’s Ark has long since disintegrated. If true, this would place a serious dent in one of Ron Wyatt’s most incredible claims, one made in the presence of the District Governor and before media representatives, of laminated wood. Further, it will be seen that David Deal declares the length of the formation to be 538 feet long. This is 23 feet longer than Ron Wyatt’s figure of 515 feet (see chapter entitled “Ron Wyatt’s Ark of the Covenant”). Such a disparity in length would most assuredly not accord with the length of the so-called Royal Egyptian cubit of 20.67 inches. Ron Wyatt, in addition, has not described a formation 2 kilometers above the Durupinar site replicating the formation at the Durupinar location. Another disparity is that David Deal states that the original settling point of the Ark was 2 kilometers above the present location. Ron Wyatt states that it is three or four kilometers above (Jonathan Gray, The Ark Conspiracy, p. 153).

246

HOLY RELICS

David Deal’s account of Noah’s City is worthy of record. This international workshop/conference was called to examine evidence for the famous, lost, post-flood city of Noah called by ancient writers and historians “Naxuan,” or, Noah’s capitol. The photogrammetric evidence was first published here in Ancient American magazine last Year (November/December 1997) in an article entitled “Noah’s Ark and His Lost City of Naxuan.” I made this discovery in July of 1997 and copyrighted a map of the ancient city at that time, gleaned from photogrametric study of a standard 8 x 8" Turkish Air Force mapping photograph taken by Captain Ilhan Durupinar in 1959. The photo was given to me in 1995 by the late David Fasold, author of The Ark of Noah (Wynwood Press, NY 1988). The once-lost city, which Noah and his descendants built after the worldwide flood, consists of approximately a thousand buried dwelling sites, is superimposed with millions of graves. In ancient times, this place ultimately became a great shrine and necropolis before falling into oblivion. It was last mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews, written nearly two thousand years ago, as a touristic center where people removed pieces of bitumen from the ruined Ark to be used as amulets to bring good luck or ward off evil. For the better part of those two thousand years, the city had been lost to all knowledge. The 538 foot-long ruins of the great ship of Noah was discovered nearby in May of 1948 after a series of severe earthquakes, by a local herdsman. The surrounding terrains collapsed, leaving the Ark structure high and dry. Photos of the Ark were published in an Australian magazine and in LIFE magazine in the early 1960s. However, until I made his [sic ?these] photogrammetric studies of the hillside and saw the initial impression of the Ark, in the identical shape and size, two kilometers farther uphill from the ark remains below, the question was always present, “Is this really the Ark of Noah?” The upper impression indicating the location of the original landing site (the Ark later slid downhill to its final resting place where its molded shape may still be seen), the building ruins and graves—even the twin peaks above the town with a great escarpment wall between them, which were cited by Gilgamesh in his famous Sumerian epic, are the prime evidence of the authenticity of the entire site. Before my discovery no one had thought to look for the lost city that, logic dictates, must have lain close to the Ark of Noah. Professor M. Salih Bayraktutan of Ataturk University is in charge of the investigation, I demonstrated to him that there was indeed evidence

Another Published Claim at the Durupinar Site

247

for ancient cultural occupation of the site which is about a mile long and a half of a mile wide, situated high (7,400' [feet] msl [above mean sea level]) on the slopes of a mountain near the Iranian border called Cudi Dagi (Mountain of Judi). The team was on the mountain for two days (October 7th and 8th 1998), other members of the team were Professor Michelson of Georgia Tech and Dr. William Shea, Professor of Archaeology from Maryland. (Ibid)

Lest any should use this article as a means of discrediting Ron Wyatt’s claims, we would urge caution. David Deal’s claims are far from verified. Dr. William Shea, who is cited above as having been a member of the team, stated in a telephone conversation with Colin on May 17, 1999 that he was unconvinced by the claim that Noah’s city had been discovered, although he was present with David Deal. Further, he stated that he could not recognize a replica of the Durupinar formation two kilometers from its site. He, too, had visited the site. Dr. Shea indicated that others in the team failed to be convinced by David Deal’s claims. Nevertheless, Ron Wyatt’s claims of discovering Noah’s and his wife’s grave also lacks independent evidence. It seems incredible that he had not produced a photograph of Noah’s wife’s giant body dressed in finery and jewelry. Properly scaled, such a photograph would have captured world headlines. The giant statures of Noah and his wife would have amazed the world and confirmed Scripture. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown (Genesis 6:4).

There is a lesson in this. We must be careful to refrain from accepting claims at face value which are not verified, even when names are stated as corroborative evidence. It is most important to seek consistent, credible verification. The one matter which Dr. Shea is inclined to accept is that the Durupinar formation is a mold of the Ark. We have reservations on all claims. After all, would a godly man like Noah build a city contrary to God’s instructions to live a rural existence?

48

Kindly Words

HE matter of Ron Wyatt’s discoveries has produced heated and unkind words on both sides of the discourse. Joseph Zias’ attack on Ron Wyatt went somewhat beyond the bounds of objectivity (See Chapter entitled, “An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition”). We were surprised at the intemperate words used by respected Seventh-day Adventist scientist, Dr. Harold Coffin, even though we concurred with his basic conclusions. As we have recorded earlier, he wrote in a letter to David Merling, Associate Director, Institute of Archaeology at Andrews University, dated January 13, 1993, which was subsequently placed on the Internet:

T

I recently read Ron Wyatt’s book, DISCOVERED: NOAH’S ARK, and was appalled. It is one of the most disgusting books I have read. Naturally I have no problem with the discovery of Noah’s ark, but the multitude of inaccuracies and errors certainly turns one off who has some information. Even the uninformed person should be suspicious when one individual claims to have found so many important artifacts that others have never found after years of diligent search.

Other examples could be cited. However we have read some patronizing and demeaning words in Jonathan Gray’s book. While it is proper to be emphatic, where it is required, let us not demean fellow believers. We felt Jonathan’s treatment of Pastor David Down was discourteous, making a laughingstock of a man who has spent years upholding validated archaeological finds. Remarks such as: The dear man ... How we loved this man! His assertions gave us some good laughs. And that is good for the soul.... This man, bless him ... (Ark of the Covenant, p. 449)

serve one purpose alone—to demean the individual. We noticed a similar style in a futile attempt to refute Dr. David Pennington:

248

Kindly Words

249

bless his heart ... the dear doctor ... (Ibid., pp. 479,480) There sat the man seething (Ibid., p.485) ... he scoffed (Ibid., p.486) ... dear man (Ibid., p.491)

We did not think that Jonathan did well, in a book designed by him for sale to the general public, when he denigrated the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Ibid., see pages 448–451). The use of the term “the Wahroonga ‘heavies,’” referring to men at the Division Headquarters in Wahroonga, a suburb of Sydney, was most unfortunate. We hear much concerning the “discoveries” as an evangelistic witness, but Jonathan Gray’s attacks upon Christians of other faiths who, although zealous seekers after Biblical confirmations, expose defects in the Wyatt/ Gray claims, is doing little to turn these men to a consideration of the Seventh-day Adventist faith. One consistent focus of Jonathan’s less-than-courteous responses has been the Creation Science group in Australia. Kind words are never amiss. This group has now responded, stating that We have done this with a heavy heart, but need to do so because phony claims can bring much discredit to the cause of Christ–and always have (Answers in Genesis Prayer News, Feb. 1999).

The article claims that they do not intend to join Mr. Gray in the gutter with a slanging match. (Ibid.)

Surely Jonathan’s recourse, if evidence exists, is to silence his critics with evidence. Calling Dr. Wieland a “liar” on quite tenuous evidence is unhelpful. It is time for kind words, lest we turn earnest believers from truth and righteousness. Jonathan Gray’s Newsletter in the first quarter of 1999 quoted Phillip Adam’s attack on the integrity of Dr. Snelling in order to demean Snelling’s objections to Wyatt’s Noah’s Ark “discovery.” Phillip Adams, a leading Sydney newspaper columnist, has been around a long time, taking every opportunity to snipe at Christians. He is an unabashed atheist. Nevertheless, if he has discovered documented duplicity in Snelling, this must not be discounted on the basis of Adam’s atheism. That would simply be pointscoring and would in no wise satisfactorily answer the matter. Adam’s claim was that when speaking to believers, Snelling ages the earth in thousands of years, but when speaking to scientists Snelling speaks

250

HOLY RELICS

in terms of millions of years. This same charge was also laid against Snelling by Alex Richie in The Skeptic magazine, Summer 1991 issue, pp. 12–15. The Skeptic is the magazine of the Australian Skeptics Society. The Creation Science Foundation has answered this charge in a circular, undated, entitled “STATEMENT RE KOONGARRA MATTER.” Paragraphs 2 & 3 of this statement which give the salient facts are quoted: Understanding the context in which Dr. Snelling wrote is important. The mining corporation for which he consults part-time asked him to contribute to a significant specialist text on the geology of Australian ore deposits. He was asked to review all the published information on Koongarra and to summarize the research of other people, whose publications he has in fact extensively referenced. The opinions of these other researchers naturally involve the standard terminology and conventional beliefs in millions of years, for example: The Foundation acknowledges that a reader unaware of this context could be led by parts of the article to believe that it was the writer’s opinion that in fact the ages of certain objects were millions of years. While acknowledging that it would have been better for the wording to make this distinction more clearly, we recognize that any caveats or explanatory comments inserted into the text by Dr. Snelling for this purpose would certainly have been deleted by the editors (who, incidentally, along with Dr. Snelling’s secular part-time employers, are fully aware of his own position).

While the response clarifies the issue, we do believe that Dr. Snelling needs to take much more care in his presentations to professional geologists, for we must ever uphold truth in all arenas. We know this is difficult, but sometimes a few words of qualification are all that is required. We do note that in the professional magazine, The Australian Geologist Sept. 20, 1986 and June 20, 1989, Dr. Snelling boldly presented his creation convictions. We must not take cheap shots in order to attempt to destroy valid criticisms of scientific claims. It would seem that the Gray Newsletter has done this. Let us be kind. We ourselves do not claim that our words have always been as temperate as they might have been. In this book our goal has been to present data objectively and non-judgmentally. In this discussion we would all do well to consider the words of inspiration: Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another (Romans 12:10).

49

Maintain a High Standard of Proof

N THIS examination we have attempted to write with authority, yet with regard to Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray and their many supporters. It is true that we believe that these folk have not demanded even modest standards of evidence before accepting that which is merely asserted and have accepted as evidence some of the worst level of photography that we have ever observed in books and videos. Nevertheless we share the blessed hope with these folk, the precious truths of Scripture, and the earnest desire for heaven. Our fear is that these unsubstantiated claims, so full of demonstrable error, will be used by the universe’s most subtle deceiver to divert them from their godly course.

I

Let no man deceive you. (Matthew 24:4).

This surely must be the hallmark of evidential material. So prone are many to accept any claim Ron Wyatt makes and to accept his every alibi offered in place of evidence that they appear to have now, in their own minds, turned the entire logic of evidence on its head. No longer is Ron Wyatt expected to produce evidence in support of his claims but rather are others required to disprove them. Notice: The discovery claim might be mocked. It might be denied. But they [certain Christian leaders] were at a complete loss to disprove it. (Ark of the Covenant, p. 444).

While technically it might be said that the Ark of the Covenant claim cannot be disproved, it is little wonder, for Ron Wyatt has not produced for examination and testing: 1. The Ark of the Covenant 2. The Tables of Stone 3. The Seven Golden Candlesticks 4. The Altar of Burnt Incense 5. The Table of Shewbread 6. The Ephod

251

252

HOLY RELICS

7. The Written book of the Law 8. The sword 9. The mitre 10. The blood 11. The blood report 12. The oil lamps 13. The cave 14. The entrance to the cave 15. The golden censer Let us be serious about this matter. How could anyone verify or disprove the validity of an artifact if it is never produced? And in any case, the onus of proof is on the one making the claim. On the other hand, Ron Wyatt has made numbers of serious claims which have been shown to be erroneous. These reports provide a prima facie case against each of Ron’s claims. What amazes us is that Jonathan Gray presents himself as a converted skeptic in this matter of the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant. Listen again to some of his utterances and musings: “Rubbish!” I cried, “You say this guy Wyatt asserts he’s found the most prized artifact on earth? who is this crazy nut?” (Ark of the Covenant p.7) “Look”, I snorted. “If that treasure had been found it would be BIG NEWS. We’d know about it!” (Ibid.) “I’ve heard things before. There’ve been so many different claims. Why should I get involved in this one?” (Ibid.) And how come a bunch of amateurs accomplish something that professional archaeologists had failed to do for so long? The whole idea was ridiculous (Ibid., p. 8). By the time I was ready to act, a whole sheaf of papers against this Wyatt guy was coming into my hands. The attack sounded reasonably scientific. Wyatt’s opponents dismissing him as a deceitful character... or, at best deluded. Whatever the truth of the matter, I had to investigate this for myself. This would be my personal quest — and I would disprove the claims of Ron Wyatt (Ibid., p. 8—ellipsis in original).

Now note Jonathan’s claim of standard of evidence: Ever skeptical, I preferred to believe only that which I could see with my own eyes (Ibid., p. 9).

Here was the standard Jonathan Gray set himself. The results of his search are recorded in a book of almost 600 pages—quite a tome—entitled the Ark of the Covenant.

Maintain a High Standard of Proof

253

What was the result? Jonathan Gray set out with a briefcase full of objections against Wyatt’s claims. However, intense investigation, repeated visits to dig sites, and privileged viewing of evidence and artifacts leave him totally convinced (Back cover of Ark of the Covenant). But what happened to Jonathan’s own standard of evidence—that he would “believe only that which I could see with my own eyes”? Let us record the number of times Jonathan has seen with his own eyes certain crucial artifacts in his quest for the Ark of the Covenant. These artifacts and the number of occasions upon which Jonathan has seen them are recorded below: 1. Ark of the Covenant—Nil 2. Tables of the Ten Commandments—Nil 3. The Seven Golden Candlesticks—Nil 4. The Altar of Burnt Incense—Nil 5. The Table of Shewbread—Nil 6. The Ephod—Nil 7. The Book of the Law Written by Moses—Nil 8. The sword, perhaps of Goliath—Nil 9. The Mitre—Nil 10 The blood—Nil 11. The blood report—Nil 12. The oil lamps—Nil 13. The movement of the blood cells—Nil 14. The dividing of the blood cells—Nil 15. A view of the blood cell chromosomes under the electron microscope—Nil 16. The cave where the Ark is said to be—Nil 17. Brass rings for the temple curtains—Nil 18. The Golden Censer—Nil What happened to Jonathan’s self-imposed standard of evidence? Yet it is Jonathan Gray who single-handedly convinced hundreds of Seventh-day Adventists in Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, and numerous Christians of other faiths, who themselves had never viewed any one of these relics. Jonathan Gray, the erstwhile skeptic of the “discovered” Ark of the Covenant, had been “forced” by the weight of evidence, so he claimed, to accept the word of Ron Wyatt, a man almost none of the Australians and New Zealanders had met until September 1998. Is it not time to take stock of our level of required evidence? Should we be promoting such non-evidence to the public? Should we be selling books

254

HOLY RELICS

and videos of such non-evidence to the public? Of course it is not difficult to pinpoint why Jonathan strayed from his own criterion of evidence—of viewing with his own eyes. It was because he set off, not to evaluate evidence; rather in his quest for truth he took the perilous course of seeking to disprove the evidence. Since he was shown no evidence, he had no opportunity to disprove it. The mistake Jonathan made—and in this he is not alone as others make tours of the “sites”—is that he saw a boat-like formation in Turkey and concluded that his eyes had shown him Ron Wyatt’s claimed Noah’s Ark. He observed a column by the Gulf of Aqaba, and although for undetermined reasons it contained no inscriptions, he had “seen” the point where Ron Wyatt claimed that King Solomon had memorialized the Red Sea Crossing. He had seen an Israeli territory in which sulfur balls were embedded and thus concluded that Ron Wyatt had correctly identified the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. From these pieces of “evidence,” submitted to insufficient scientific scrutiny, Jonathan’s mind must have lost its caution and led him to assume that that was proven fact, which in no way met his own criterion (visual observation). We believe that Jonathan Gray is a sincere man. But he has accepted far too low a standard of evidence to be a reliable promoter of Ron Wyatt’s claim. True, he has a convincing public manner, but that should not substitute for rock-solid evidence. Remember, we are in the days of terrible deception. The enemy of souls is using every subtle device to deceive the very elect. God’s cry to us is: Be not deceived (Galatians 6:7) (1 Corinthians 6:9; 15:33) Take heed that ye be not deceived (Luke 21:8) Take heed that no man deceive you (Matthew 24:4) If it were possible they shall deceive the very elect (Matthew 24:24) Take heed lest any man deceive you (Mark 13:5) [Some] by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of [many] (Romans 16:18) Let no man deceive himself (1 Corinthians 3:18) Let no man deceive you (Ephesians 5:6) Let no man deceive you by any means (2 Thessalonians 2:3, emphasis added) Little children, let no man deceive you (1 John 3:7) We suggest that these scripture nuggets be read in context and studied. It will be found that many are not referring to the acceptance of assertions devoid of evidence—yet the principle that deceptions of every kind are rife

Maintain a High Standard of Proof

255

in this old world permeates all texts. It is a principle we would all do well to take to our hearts. Jonathan has shown himself to be prone to accept false Biblical concepts. Without providing credit for his theological assertions, he reproduces virtually word for word from Jack Sequeira’s book Dynamics of the Everlasting Gospel the latter’s unscriptural postulates concerning sin, iniquity and transgression. Thus Jonathan states, The word “transgression” means a deliberate violation of the law, or willful disobedience. The word “sin” means “missing the mark.” Man is born a slave to sin and no matter how hard he wills or tries, he will fall short of the divine mark. “Iniquity” is simply seeking our own way. The primary meaning of iniquity is not an act but a condition. As a result of man’s fall, man by his own nature is spiritually “bent,” so that the driving force of his nature is love of self. (Ark of the Covenant, p. 430).

These three definitions represent, respectively, the three Roman Catholic forms of sin—mortal sin, venial sin and original sin. Compare Jonathan’s definitions with those of Pastor Jack Sequeira. Manifestly Jonathan has reproduced Pastor Sequeira’s work in this matter or they have both taken their definitions from a common source for which no credit is provided by either. We record Pastor Sequeira’s definitions below. He states that, transgression means a deliberate violation of the law, or willful disobedience (Jack Sequeira, Dynamics of the Everlasting Gospel p.4)

It will be seen that Jonathan’s definition uses exactly the same words. Sequeira states of sin that, The actual meaning of this word is “missing the mark” (Ibid).

The words in quotation marks are identical to those of Jonathan Gray, whose book post-dated Pastor Sequeira’s. Pastor Jack Sequeira defined iniquity as, “crooked” or to be “bent” (Ibid., p. 3).

Jonathan Gray states that iniquity means to be “spiritually bent.” These definitions defy Scripture. To state that iniquity is not an act is plainly wrong. This term most certainly does include acts as well as thoughts, else the Scripture could not assert: They also do no iniquity (Psalm 119:3, emphasis added).

256

HOLY RELICS

The remnant of Israel shall do no iniquity (Zephaniah 3:13, emphasis added).

Christ could not have condemned those that work iniquity (Matthew 7:23, emphasis added).

Nor could He speak of those who do iniquity (Matthew 13:41, emphasis added).

Neither would He have spoken of those who are workers of iniquity (Luke 13:27, emphasis added).

Indeed Scripture is replete with passages which emphasize that iniquity includes our evil works. This is not surprising because the terms iniquity, sin and transgression are used synonymously in Scripture. The three terms are used on occasions simultaneously to emphasize evil: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. (Psalm 32:1–2, emphasis added)

Let it not be forgotten that Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4, emphasis added).

This is one instance where Jonathan has been a less-than-wise Bible student, for Pastor Sequeira has propounded a set of non-Scriptural theories propounded by Roman Catholics, which have led many from Scriptural truth. Great men, including a former General Conference president, were beguiled by Pastor Sequeira’s false teachings. But we cannot dare to be so deluded, for eternity is at stake. We remind the flock of Christ of this godly advice, Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

These are words of divine wisdom. We have held our peace on this matter for far too long. For this we apologize to the flock of God. We felt that our silence would prevent yet another split among God’s people. In this hope we were quite wrong and such judgment has proven to be faulted. We should have well known that unity is based upon truth and sanctification—nothing else. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth (John 17:17). But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the

Maintain a High Standard of Proof

257

truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

We see an eroding of Bible faith in some of the claims made and we see a lowering of the standard of required evidence which bodes ill, if not arrested, for God’s elect in these last days, days when only the highest standard of evidence must be required if we are to resist the mighty deceptions of Satan. This book has not been written in haste. It has required considerable background research in order that we might understand the science and technology involved in certain areas in which we have no personal expertise. We have not, despite very busy schedules, resiled from such research. God’s people deserve no less than the expenditure of all our energy. This book most certainly is not written in order to divide God’s people. God forbid! But we have seen some unwittingly drifting to an unstated position which is almost tantamount to an orthodox standard based upon whether one accepts or rejects the “discoveries.” We believe that we must share our concerns, our caution and our Christian love with the people of God. Most of us share precious truths, truths now under fearful attack in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We all desire heaven, we all seek redemption, we all desire the unity of the flock and the reception of the seal of the living God. Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright (Psalm 33:1).

It is this unity we crave. We recognize as pastors that we bear a fearful responsibility. We do not wish to let down either God or His people. We are servants first of God and then of His children. We endeavor in His strength to fulfil our calling faithfully. Where we have failed, we sorely repent. Let us all, along with Ron and Jonathan, spend eternity together. Let us make revelation—not holy relics—the basis of our faith.

50

Visiting the Sites

ANY have pressed us to visit the archaeological sites before passing judgment upon Ron Wyatt’s work. Incredibly most who have offered such advice had not, themselves, visited the sites before accepting Ron Wyatt’s claims. We consider the onus to do so rests more upon those who are prepared to accept the discoveries as genuine. But what would be achieved by our visiting those sites? Would we see the Ark of the Covenant and confirm its presence? Would we see the grave of Korah and his cohorts? Would we be able to view the graves and bodies of Noah and his wife? Would we see the column on the Saudi Arabian side of the Gulf of Aqaba showing the inscription said to have been made by Solomon? Would we see the skeletons of soldiers and horses and the wheels and chariots strewn for a mile and a half along the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba? Would we be able to view the laboratory report on the purported blood of Jesus? Would we be able to view Ron Wyatt’s excavating license? Would we meet the four angels guarding the Ark of the Covenant? Would we be permitted to climb Jebel el Lawz? Would the Garden Tomb Association corroborate Ron’s claims? Would the Israeli authorities confirm any of Ron’s assertions in respect of their prohibitions? We have spoken to a number who have visited the sites. Not one has confirmed to us that they have seen any of these artifacts except one coral encrusted object which may be part of a wheel. Despite diligent scuba diving no one has reported seeing the debris of the Egyptian army spread for a distance of over two kilometers on the sea bed. The wheel artifact and one femur bone said to be present there have never been subjected to rigorous testing. Of course we would greatly enjoy a visit to these regions. But our interest would extend far beyond Ron Wyatt’s claims. On our stipends we could not afford to make the trips even if our fares were paid by frequent flyer points, for internal travel and accommodation would go beyond our means. We do not intend to use ministry funds for such a purpose for we believe they are a sacred trust which have been placed in our ministry for

M

258

Visiting the Sites

259

the purpose of spreading the three angels’ messages and contributing to the completion of the gospel commission. The few who have traveled to the Wyatt sites have seen non-evidential material such as the Garden Tomb, the three niches in the rocks, the sulfur balls of the Gomorrah site, the “sphinx” and “ziggurat,” mere amorphous shapes, the ashes unproven by testing, the uninscribed column of unknown origin erected by soldiers near the Gulf of Aqaba and the ship-like formation in Turkey. Whatever has been seen lacks the hallmark of evidence. The artifacts observed rather have been submitted more to the judgment of Ron Wyatt’s interpretation than to proper repeatable and confirmable scrutiny. The only object where a considerable effort has been made to obtain confirmation—the boat formation—has produced results upon which Ron Wyatt has presented interpretations which go beyond the data. But the greatest strike against the claimed discoveries, one which requires no visit to the Middle East, is that a number of Ron’s unsubstantiated “discoveries” conflict with Scripture. Just as we do not have to visit every nook and cranny of the earth in order to deny the skeptic’s claim that there was not a worldwide deluge, neither is that necessary for a number of the claimed Wyatt artifacts. Such claims include that Christ’s blood contained only 24 chromosomes; that when Christ’s blood reached the earthly Mercy Seat type had met antitype, our redemption had taken place. Scripture has spoken to the contrary and that is sufficient. Other matters are just as easily weighed in Australia, the United States or anywhere else as in the Middle East. Remember that Danny Shelton and the 3ABN television team were promised they could video the Ark of the Covenant in 1989, a full seven years after Ron stated that he discovered the Ark and the Temple furnishings. If Ron had genuinely been forbidden by an angel to display these objects, why then did he make such a promise to the 3ABN crew? Why, also, did Ron Wyatt make a similar promise to Dr. Bernard Brandstater and his colleagues? And if Ron Wyatt obtained severely blurred photographs in his attempts to record the cave contents, why did he anticipate that Danny Shelton’s team would fare better? If it is asserted that the angel only prohibited the display after these visits, then why did Ron Wyatt not display the treasures in the intervening period between discovery and his receiving the angelic prohibition, a period which had, then, to be in excess of seven years? If, in answer to this question, it is stated that Ron’s failure to produce the temple artifacts was based upon the Israeli security prohibition, then why did he make such promises to Mr. Shelton and Dr. Brandstater and thus imperil Israeli security?

260

HOLY RELICS

These are important questions which have never received satisfactory answers. There is no need to visit the Middle East in order to discover answers to these questions. The documented fact is that Ron Wyatt has claimed that in 1982, sometime between January 6 and his return to the United States, he had unsuccessfully attempted to photograph the temple relics, not only using Polaroid and 35mm cameras, but more importantly, a video recorder. Since he returned a second time to Jerusalem in May, 1982 it is manifest that these attempts to photograph the temple articles of furniture took place very early in 1982. Yet in 1989, seven years later, fully cognizant of the fact that by his own testimony it was not possible to video the temple furnishings, Ron accepted $10,000 based upon his promise that Danny Shelton and 3ABN team could video that which was not possible to record on camera. Even more alarming is the fact, proven by the Wyatt version of the contract, that that money was non-refundable. When the 3ABN crew arrived to film their world “scoop,” they found another four or five videoists present, pursuing a promise to video the Ark of the Covenant. Surely here something is wrong, seriously wrong. Yet it is not an error in our account of Ron Wyatt’s camera efforts. Listen to the words of Mary Nell Wyatt on the Wyatt Archaeological Research Discovery tape, shown widely around the world. In January of 1982, after steadily digging in a cave system since 1979, he busted through the rock into a chamber which contained a gold table and several other artifacts which Ron believed to be from the First Temple. Then, further back, he saw the top of a stone case which appeared to be the correct size to contain the Ark of the Covenant. Overwhelmed with emotion and double pneumonia, Ron passed out in that chamber for 45 minutes. He knew what was in that case, but now what? He attempted to photograph it with a Polaroid camera, a 35mm camera, and video. In every case, the photos were a white-out. He returned home to recover and work until he could afford to return. In May, he borrowed a colonoscope and went back. Drilling a small hole through the case, he was able to see enough to positively identify the contents of the stone case—it was the Ark!

Notice this statement:— 1. The Ark was sighted January 1982. 2. It was at this time Ron failed in each effort to photograph the artifacts. 3. He returned to Israel in May, 1982 with a colonoscope.

Visiting the Sites

261

Those interested in Ron Wyatt’s finding deserve an explanation of why numbers of individuals, seeking to view and photograph the temple furnishings were induced to expend their means when Ron Wyatt claims that then in some mysterious way there was no possibility of succeeding in this quest. In addition, every other adult who has sought to enter the cave has been said to have died, or at the very least been paralyzed. If these accounts are correct, why did Ron Wyatt imperil the lives of those whom he promised that they could photograph the temple relics? These questions merit serious consideration. Surely we will not be subjected yet again to an alibi in order to rationalize the discrepancy between promises and the claimed abortive photography on the one hand, and deaths of those who dared to seek to enter the cave on the other. It is surely time for those who have been influenced by Ron Wyatt’s materials to seriously evaluate their validity. There is no need to travel to the Middle East in order to ponder these matters.

51

Miracles

performed many miracles. Many were miracles of healing, both of physical and spiritual maladies. He also performed miracles of sustenance as when He fed 5,000 on one occasion (Luke 9:13– 17) and four thousand on another (Matthew 15:36–38) using simply a few fish and bread loaves. He raised a stinking, rotting body to life (John 11:1– 46), He healed a man blind from birth (John 9:1–11), He healed lepers instantly (Luke 17:12–14) and He healed the lame (John 5:2-9). These miracles were characterized by three salient evidential matters: 1. Numerous individuals were present to testify to the miraculous events. 2. Witnesses testified to the condition of the individual prior to the miracle or in the case of the vast propagation of food, to the scarcity of fish and loaves from which the enormous meal was prepared. 3. All were confirmed by God to be miracles. When Peter and John, in Christ’s power, healed the lame man on the Temple steps (Acts 3:2–8), thousands were able to testify to his prior condition for they had passed him daily begging there. Many were present when the lame man, for the first time in his life, was able to walk and run. The miracle was the act of a moment. Many miracles have been claimed in relation to Ron Wyatt’s “discovery” of the Ark of the Covenant. For a miracle to be confirmed and accepted there must be confirmation by reliable witnesses. We must not forget the fact that Roman Catholicism established a firm grip upon its adherents by use of unsubstantiated claims of miraculous happenings. In many cases the claimed miracles have never been confirmed. One example is the “miraculous” transportation of “Pilate’s Staircase” from Jerusalem to Rome. Another is the so-called miraculous healing of the woman when Emperor Constantine’s mother, Helena, claimed to have found three crosses. The cross of Christ, it is said, when touched upon the forehead of the ill woman brought a miraculous healing. Such unconfirmed

C

HRIST

262

Miracles

263

miracles must be discounted for no evidence has been produced. But it would seem that Satan has been so successful for centuries in deceiving pious people by such miraculous deceptions that he is not limiting his efforts to Roman Catholics but also is deceiving other Protestants as well as Seventh-day Adventists by the self-same practices. The third feature of Christ’s miracles, their verification by God, is also important, for Satan is perfectly capable of working miracles, and we have been warned that he will do so most effectively in the last days (Revelation 13:13,14; 16:14). Numerous people who were gathered at the site of the apparition of “Mary” in 1917 at Fatima, Portugal, testified that they saw the sun hurtling to earth as a golden ball and that it dried up the soaked ground upon which the pilgrims were standing. This manifest miracle did meet the first two criteria, but it failed to meet the third, for Scripture states that, The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not any thing. (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

Notwithstanding the Roman Catholic unscriptural dogma of Mary’s bodily assumption to heaven, Mary is dead. This virtuous woman sleeps in her grave, awaiting the resurrection at Christ’s return (See 1 Thessalonians 4:13–17). Thus there is little doubt that a miracle did occur at Fatima, but God most certainly was not the source of that miracle. Earnest Christians, as judged by their writings, Arthur and Rosalind Eedle, of Lincolnshire, England, edit a Christian newsletter, The Prophetic Telegraph. They devoted the entire edition No. 78, dated January, 1996 to Ron Wyatt’s “discovery” of the Ark of the Covenant. In that edition they identified ten miracles they claimed to be of God, which they believe were done in order to testify of the divine origin of Ron Wyatt’s discoveries. We shall examine these miracles in the light of Christ’s miracles. The Eedle’s judgment that these miracles did occur and were divinely based was formed after hearing a lecture in a London church presented by Jonathan Gray on October 7, 1995 and listening to an undated address presented by Ron Wyatt in Nashville, Tennessee. Probably the Eedles viewed this latter address on videotape. We quote from the Prophetic Telegraph, January 1996, unless otherwise indicated. Miracle No. 1—Ron found his arm shooting out, and he pointed saying “There’s Jeremiah’s Grotto—that rubbish heap—the Ark of the Covenant must be there.” (pp. 1,2) One witness is cited as being present, the Director of Antiquities. This

264

HOLY RELICS

man, although never Director of Antiquities, was a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Department. He was Dr. Daniel Bahat (See photograph of Ron Wyatt with Dr. Bahat in Ron’s book (1989) Discovered, Noah’s Ark between pages 41 and 42) On March 25, 1999 Russell rang Dr. Bahat in Jerusalem. Dr. Bahat had acknowledged in a previous telephone conversation with Russell that he had met with Ron Wyatt on between five and ten occasions in the late 1980s. He clearly recalled accompanying Ron to the vicinity of the Garden tomb. Dr. Bahat was very open in his remarks. These remarks possessed no detectable animosity towards Ron Wyatt. Indeed Dr. Bahat spoke kindly of him as being a soft-spoken and gentle person. Nevertheless, Dr. Bahat stated that he had absolutely no recollection of the incident to which Ron Wyatt referred. Now we recognize that memories of events which have occurred in the lives of busy men twenty years earlier are not infrequently faulty. But it is not safe to accept as a miracle of God an uncorroborated claim. In any case it must never be forgotten that, whether Ron’s arm shot out or not as he exclaimed that the Ark of the Covenant was in the location of Jeremiah’s Grotto, to this date no evidence whatsoever of the finding of the Ark of the Covenant has ever been produced by Ron Wyatt. Thus this claim of a miracle has no substance whatsoever. It hangs upon Ron Wyatt’s testimony alone. Miracle No. 2—The Director answered spontaneously, “Then you must find it” . . . the Director’s enthusiastic response and request for him to find the Ark was miracle number two. (p. 2) Just as Dr. Bahat had no recall of the arm-pointing incident, so he remembers nothing of the “miraculous” response which has been attributed to him. Once more we caution readers that in accessing these “miracles” we must never lose sight of the fact that the Ark of the Covenant has never been produced. Miracle No. 3—Most surprisingly, both [the Arab and European owner of the site over “the Ark”] gave that permission without even asking what they were looking for. (p. 2) We notice that the name of neither owner is mentioned, so we cannot confirm this miracle. But in any case it is far from rare for generous owners of property to permit various searchers upon it. Such permission, in isolation, can scarcely merit the designation of a miracle. We do possess evidence that the Garden Tomb Association, on Dr. Bahat’s suggestion, did provide permission for Ron to dig in the region of the rubbish heap. But

Miracles

265

this can hardly be described as a miracle. Miracle No. 4—It was then that Ron realized an Angel had been sent to give them encouragement to spur them on. (p. 3) The Eedles report on the same page that neither of the other two men in the vicinity had “seen anyone.” Mary Nell Wyatt, (Ark of the Covenant) claims that one man heard the angel’s/christ’s voice. There is no confirmation of this “miracle.” This claim must also be weighed by the Scriptural evidence of Satanic deception in the last days, when we are warned that Satan will mimic an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) and Christ’s warnings against false Christs (Matthew 24:5,24). Also, Christ’s own warning against believing His presence upon earth after His ascension (Matthew 24:23,26) must discount all suggestions that Christ appeared in person to Ron Wyatt. Miracle No. 5—The Director of Antiquities was informed [of Ron discovering the Ark of the Covenant], and had hurried to the site, and began to enter the cave, but on doing so his back collapsed and he had to be taken to the hospital where he remained paralyzed for nearly two weeks. (p. 4) On May 25, 1999 Russell spoke by phone to Dr. Daniel Bahat, the official Israeli archaeologist who accompanied Ron Wyatt to the Garden Tomb site a third time. He categorically and emphatically denied that he had ever suffered a collapse of his back. He had never been paralyzed nor had he spent two weeks in hospital. Dr. Bahat, on the three occasions Russell spoke to him demonstrated a kindly attitude to Ron Wyatt. He expressed surprise that Ron Wyatt would make such a claim when it was untrue. Dr. Bahat also expressed sorrow when Russell informed him that Ron Wyatt was ill. He stated that the last time he met Ron was several years ago when he, Dr. Bahat, spoke in one of the southern states of the United States of America and Ron attended. Miracle No. 6—The Eedles report the well-recorded statement that Polaroid, regular camera and video films all showed a blur (golden haze) where the Ark was claimed to be located. (p. 4) These films require expert testing to ensure no tampering. The one fact which is evident is that they demonstrated no photographs of the Ark of the Covenant. Miracle No. 7—A Jewish official suddenly decided to halt all further work on the site. . . . The prayer [of Ron Wyatt] was answered almost immediately, because the man had a heart attack and died. (p. 4) Once again there is no supplied evidence. The official is not named. Thus the “miracle” cannot be investigated until further evidence is forthcoming.

266

HOLY RELICS

In the May 25, 1999 conversation which Russell held with Dr. Daniel Bahat, he stated that, while he could not be dogmatic on the issue, he knew of no Jewish official who had dealt with Ron Wyatt who had died in that era from a heart attack. He also stated that the only prohibition upon Ron excavating around the Garden Tomb came, eventually, from the Warden of the Garden Tomb, an Englishman, who to his knowledge had not died soon after the prohibition was issued. Miracle No. 8—Calling a press conference for 9 am the next morning, he [a man who had surreptitiously discovered what Ron Wyatt was doing] prepared himself to blast their secret into the open. But the following morning at 8 am he was found dead in an alleyway in a pool of blood, having been shot by the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] on some unrelated matter. Since Ron Wyatt has never claimed any prohibition from God for the public release of information concerning Ron’s finds, we cannot help but wonder at the severe retribution taken upon this inquiring man, as the claim of a miracle would indicate that God permitted this death at the appropriate time. We would also question how Ron Wyatt knew the mind of the PLO assassin to the extent that he shot the man because of an unrelated matter. Miracle No. 9—God the Father had rent the rocks to make way for His Son’s blood to flow down from the spear wound, through the newly formed fissure onto the Mercy Seat itself. (p. 5) We must not forget that the blood has never been produced and Ron Wyatt’s description of the dividing of the blood cells in the blood is unscientific, unless one invokes yet another miracle. Thus we have no grounds whatsoever upon which to declare a mere unsubstantiated claim to be a miracle. To claim such as a miracle would be to devalue seriously the meaning of the word. On January 30, 1999, in fact, in a video presentation Ron Wyatt did claim, after learning of objections to blood cell division within the blood, that possibly God performed such a miracle to ensure that we at the end of time knew it was the blood of Christ. This claim of miracle falls on the fact that neither the blood nor its active division has ever been demonstrated. Miracle No. 10—[In Christ] All 23 [chromosomes] from the mother [were present, but] only one [other] chromosome was present, the Y chromosome showing that the blood belonged to a male, but that he had no human father. (p. 6, emphasis in original) This “miracle” may be discounted as it plainly denies Scripture which states (Hebrew 2:14) that Christ possessed the same blood as ours and that

Miracles

267

He was made like unto us in all things (Hebrews 2:17). Further, neither the blood, nor the laboratory report, nor the name and address of the testing laboratory have ever been produced. Thus we deny Miracle No. 10. Let us be careful in ascribing to unsubstantiated claims the status of miracles. To do so is to follow a very dangerous course. Even when undoubted miracles do occur, we would do well to reflect upon the warnings in the Word of God. For instance we have been clearly told that miracles not performed by Christ, will be a feature of these last days. Let us not forget that we are in the last days, the days when miracles of devils are rife. May we all seek the Lord in order to provide us with discernment. That discernment will be based upon the Word of Scripture— “the law and the testimony” (Isaiah 20:8).

52

The Elusive Excavating Permit

LAIMS and counterclaims concerning Ron Wyatt’s insistence that he once possessed an Excavating Permit from the Israel Antiquities Authority or its predecessor, the Israeli Department of Antiquities, are rife. The Israel Antiquities Department has consistently asserted that it has never issued such a permit to Ron Wyatt. The entire matter would be promptly settled if the claimed permit or license were to be produced by Ron Wyatt. While in Australia in January and February 1999 Ron Wyatt provided answers that indicated that he had the permit at home. One such answer was that he had forgotten to bring it with him. Another claimed answer was that he had no intention of bringing it to Australia. Such answers are tantamount to claiming current possession of the outdated license. The Israel Antiquities Authority representatives have been prepared to place in writing on several occasions that the Authority had never issued Ron Wyatt such a license. In the chapter entitled “An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition,” we have documented the internet assertion of Joseph Zias, Curator of Archaeology and Anthropology at the Israel Antiquities Authority 1972–1997, that Ron Wyatt has never been issued an excavating license. Mr. Zias challenged Ron Wyatt in August 1996 to produce it. General Amin Drorie, the current Director of the Israel Antiquities Authority told Russell by phone, that since his appointment in 1989 Ron Wyatt had not received a license. Indeed all three living men whom Ron Wyatt named as having signed his license, in a videoed presentation he made at Amazing Truth Ministry on January 30, 1999, have emphatically denied having done so in individual telephone conversations with Russell. (See chapter entitled “Where is the Evidence?”) These men were General Amin Drorie, Professor Daniel Bahat and Professor Amos Kloner. The fourth man, Dr. Joseph Gat, is now dead. Ron Wyatt pre-empted their negative responses. He claimed that he was reluctant to produce his excavating permit lest the publication of their signatures upon it would cause them embarrassment. (Videoed presentation at Amazing Truth Ministry, Janu-

C

268

The Elusive Excavating Permit

269

ary 30, 1999). But since August 1996 Joseph Zias has called for Ron Wyatt to publically display his license. (See documentation in chapter entitled, “An Examination of the Israeli Prohibition.”) Further, in a letter written to Pastor Ron Spear on November 22, 1998, Osnat Goaz, Spokeswoman, Department of Education and Information, of the Israel Antiquities Authority, stated quite explicitly that Ron Wyatt has never received a license from the Israel Antiquities Authority to excavate in Israel.

Despite the fact that Ron Wyatt has never produced the claimed license, and notwithstanding the consistent denials of those who have access to the records in Israel, there is a persisting belief that he previously did receive such a permit. Some confusion has arisen because the Garden Tomb Association, which is not under the direction of the Israel Antiquities Authority, has previously granted Ron Wyatt verbal permission to dig in a disused cistern which has been filled with garbage and rubble over the years. The Garden Tomb Association is an English Organization which functions independently in its circumscribed location of about one acre (0.4 hectares). It is an arrangement made with the Israeli authorities. Supporters of the Wyatt “discoveries” did in fact find encouragement in a letter written by Dr. William Shea to John Paige in Australia, dated February 19, 1999. This letter stated that, Yes, he did have a permit from the department of antiquities to work there for several years. He also had permission from the Garden Tomb authority. I contacted Rudolph Cohen who at the time (1986) was supervisor for the Dept. of Antiquities to get Ron’s permit extended. Cohen said that he had to set up a supervisory board of three qualified archaeologists. I don’t think that Ron ever did that so his permit lapsed. The same can be said for the Garden Tomb people.

On May 3, 1999 Colin spoke with Dr. William Shea concerning this matter. In that conversation Dr. Shea stated that he had never seen any written permit and had always understood that the permission was verbal. This, of course, accords with that which is already well known except in the fact that there is no evidence that the Department of Antiquities gave even verbal permission for Ron to dig in Jerusalem. The Garden Tomb authority alone gave that verbal permission. When Colin undertook speaking appointments in England in March, 1999 the Wyatt Archaeological Research Center sent across three documents to confirm that Ron had once held an Excavating Permit / License

270

HOLY RELICS

issued by the Israel Antiquities Authority or its predecessor the Israeli Antiquities Department. It is worth recording the relevant sections of these documents, which are not without intrinsic interest. All were sent to Mr. Aaron Sen in England. The first of these documents has been quoted earlier in this book. We reproduce it for completeness of the record. It is an undated and unsigned document on “The Garden Tomb” stationary and is subheaded “The Garden Tomb (Jerusalem) Association.” The document stated— Ron Wyatt The Council of the Garden Tomb Association (London) totally refute the claim of Mr. Wyatt to have discovered the original Ark of the Covenant or any other biblical artifacts within the boundaries of the area known as the Garden Tomb Jerusalem. Though Mr. Wyatt was allowed to dig within this privately owned garden on a number of occasions (the last occasion being the summer of 1991) staff members of the Association observed his progress and entered his excavated shaft. As far as we are aware nothing was ever discovered to support his claims nor have we seen any evidence of Biblical artifacts or temple treasures. The Israeli Antiquities Authority recently stated that Mr. Wyatt lacks any archaeological qualification and has never received a license to excavate in Jerusalem. Quote “We are aware of his (Mr. Wyatt’s) claims which border on the absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever nor have they been published in a professional journal”

At the bottom of this exhibit someone, said to be Mary Nell Wyatt, had written, Please note, you cannot dig anywhere in Jerusalem without a permit!! Ron did have a permit and did dig in the Garden Tomb “on a number of occasions.”

This was a curious document to cite in evidence. It surely was far from complimentary to the work of Ron Wyatt. It is not the type of document one would normally select for a reference. It is possible that the production of such a document indicates the difficulty in confirming Ron’s previous possession of a license. In reality this document simply confirms that Ron Wyatt was “allowed to dig within this privately owned garden on a number of occasions.” Such a matter is well known. But it in no wise confirms the claim that Ron was ever the recipient of a license to excavate from the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The Elusive Excavating Permit

271

When Russell spoke to an officer of the Garden Tomb Association in Jerusalem on May 25, 1999 the female officer who answered his inquiry immediately read to him the above statement as the position of the Association upon Ron Wyatt. Clearly there have been a sufficient number of inquiries to necessitate speedy access to the statement. Her reading of the statement confirms its authenticity even though it is undated and unsigned. The Chaplain on duty, an Englishman, informed Russell that the Garden Tomb was discovered in 1867 and was sold to the Garden Tomb Association by its Greek Moslem owner in the 1870s. The Chaplain stated that the Association consisted of Christians of an evangelical persuasion who were members of various denominations. The Association, significantly, makes no claim that the tomb is that of Christ. Rather the tomb is seen as a visual aid to the events of Christ’s death and resurrection. They hold no position on the age of the tomb. But most authorities agree that the tomb was constructed about 700 B.C. during the period of the First Temple. One such authority is Joseph Zias, retired Curator of Archaeology and Antropology, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Conversation with Russell by telephone, February 9, 1999). However, they do see it as depicting four Biblical features in common with Christ’s tomb— 1. It possess a groove for a round stone to cover the opening. The stone itself is not present. 2. It is cut out of rock. 3. It is a large tomb consistent with one of Joseph’s wealth and prestige. 4. It is unfinished. Exhibit number 2 was a letter written to Ron Wyatt by Dr. William Shea, dated July 20, 1986. We quote it in full. Have arrived back from Israel after conducting all of my business there in 3–4 days. I did get over to see Dan Bahat at the Rockefeller Museum but it was hard to catch him. They say there that he does not like to sit at a desk but prefers to be out in the field or doing something, but I finally did catch up with him after the third try. The results were not too encouraging for your project. Of the four points you wanted me to ask him about:

1. With regards to your use of the radar screening device on your candidate for Kadesh-Barnea, he says the man to contact about that is named Rudolph Cohen. He said he did not think that it would be much trouble as long as no excavation permit is requested, just a radar screen should not be a problem.

272 2.

HOLY RELICS

With regards to the serial photos of Jebel el Lawz, he said that he tried to get the aerial photograph people to do it for him and he knows them from his military service but they declined to do so for him so he does not have any of those photographs. 3. The main point that he covered was what you wanted to know from his letter. He had not written the letter but he told me the story more or less. The points he covered were these: a. In the first place the supervisorship of the Garden tomb property has changed and for further work in the area you would need permission of the new proprietors. The old man (Rev. White?) has retired and you will have to work with the new people there now. b. Bahat himself does not want you to do any more tunneling as he says this is not sound archaeological technique and if you found something it would not be demonstrated so in proper relations because of a lack of stratigraphic digging. So the way the site has to be approached according to his instructions is to dig a series of 5 meter squares up to the face of the cliff and inwards, that way you will have stratigraphic control over your findings. c. The problem this poses in one direction is that he does not know whether the Garden Tomb people want any digging of this scale on their property. He says you will have to negotiate with them and see what you can work out. d. On the other hand he wants some scientific controls over your project. He wants you to set up a scientific archaeological committee to oversee and supervise the digging that is done there. 4. He did report on the pottery that you brought to him and he says that it is “Second temple period to Medieval” and he said this was a surprise to him because he expected only the later period to be represented. I didn’t ask him what he meant by 2nd temple period pottery, i.e., whether it could go back to Perisian period, but it certainly would include Greco-Roman. That’s the gist of what I got out of him, which is not too much solid progress for you. He felt that for you to come back in August to work would be too soon before these other bases have been touched. At any rate I hope this information is of some use to you. Best regards, (/s/Bill) Once again we read nothing in this letter which contradicts the claim of the Israel Antiquity Authority, that Ron Wyatt has never possessed an excavat-

The Elusive Excavating Permit

273

ing license. Indeed Dr. Shea’s letter specifically states that Dr. Daniel Bahat confined Ron’s scope of activity to work for which “no excavation permit is requested.” This surely is evidence beyond dispute that in 1986 Ron Wyatt possessed no such permit. Exhibit number 3 is a letter written by Dr. John Baumgardner to Mrs. Cruickshanks dated December 17, 1986. We reproduce the sole paragraph which referred to Israel. If searching for one ark isn’t enough, I was persuaded to join a group that spent three weeks in Israel during March and April searching for the Ark of the Covenant—that is, the gold-covered box containing the Ten Commandments that was in the tabernacle and later in the Holy of Holies of the temple that Solomon built. We investigated a tunnel network inside the portion of Mt. Moriah north of the old city of Jerusalem where Gordon’s Calvary is located. We didn’t find it, but I do not discount the possibility that it is somewhere nearby. [Remember that Dr. Baumgardner undertook this investigation about four years after Ron Wyatt claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant] Incredibly, we worked under the authority of the Director of Antiquities for all of Jerusalem. Yes, I do believe God’s plan for His children is full of adventure and surprises and blessing.

Dr. Baumgardner’s statement here refers to the cooperation that Dr. Daniel Bahat afforded the search. It does not, once again, lend any credence to the claim that Ron Wyatt held the permit he had stated he had possessed. As we review these three exhibits, none of which confirm Ron’s claim, they are mute testimonies strongly implying that Ron Wyatt does not possess the excavating license, for surely if he did his office would not have spent the time sending inconclusive and even damaging documents. It would have been far easier and would have settled the issue once and for all if a copy of the permit had been faxed instead. The failure to do just that will be taken by many as convincing evidence that the assertions of the Israel Antiquities Authority are absolutely correct. We have seen no evidence which would cause us to dispute such a conclusion.

53

Scriptural Truths Destroyed

major purpose in authoring this book is our concern that belief significant Bible truths is attacked by Ron Wyatt’s unsubstantiated claims concerning the Ark of the Covenant. It is true that the great majority of Seventh-day Adventists presently supporting the Wyatt claims have not yet turned from these doctrines. But we see diligent efforts being undertaken to find passages in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy writings to support the Wyatt suppositions, despite the fact that none concerning the Ark of the Covenant have been verified. If this loyal push to shore up Ron’s claims, which not only are totally unsubstantiated, but in symbols and substance deny “the law and the testimony,” eventually dangerous aberrations of truth are bound to be deduced and presented as precious truth. Below we list some of the salient doctrines and Biblical facts which are imperiled by the Wyatt “discoveries.” 1. The completion of the atonement in the heavenly sanctuary. (Leviticus 16; Patriarchs and Prophets pp. 387,388)—See chapter entitled “A Serious Deviation from Seventh-day Adventist Doctrine.” 2. The blotting out of sins in the investigative judgment. (Patriarchs and Prophets pp. 387,388)—See chapter entitled “A Serious Deviation from Seventh-day Adventist Doctrine.” 3. The account of Noah’s ark settling on a mount of low altitude 75 days prior to the tops of the highest mountains being exposed. (Genesis 8:4,5)—See chapter entitled “Dramatic Headline.” 4. That Christ’s designation was placed upon the cross (Desire of Ages p. 745).—See chapter entitled “Relics.” 5. The promises of Christ that He would not appear on the earth in person prior to His second coming. (Matthew 24:23–27)—See chapter entitled “Christ’s Warning.”

O

UR

274

Scriptural Truths Destroyed 6.

275

The Biblical truth that He had the same blood as we possess. (Hebrews 2:14)—See chapter entitled “The Theology of Twenty-four Chromosomes.” 7. The statement that Christ was buried in a new tomb—the Garden Tomb was 700 years old during Christ’s period on earth (John 19:41)—See chapter entitled “The Elusive Excavating Permit.” 8. The warning is scarcely considered that Satan will appear as an angel or as a false Christ. This is a most serious matter. (2 Corinthians 11:14)—See chapter entitled “Christ’s Warning.” 9. Mt Horeb is not a rock. It is a synonym for Mt Sinai. (1 Kings 19:8; Malachi 4:4; Deuteronomy 4:10–15)—See chapter entitled “Mount Sinai in Arabia.” 10. Misuse of the text which states that the life is in the blood as evidence that Christ’s blood did not die (Leviticus 17:10-14)— See chapter entitled “The Question of the Blood Deepens.” 11. The Biblical truth that Christ was made like unto His brethren in every respect—this has serious implications for the doctrine of the human nature of Christ (Hebrews 2:17)—See chapter entitled “Christ’s Human Nature—The Central Issue of the Gospel.” 12. The Bible Truth that Christ can give us victory over sin (Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 2:18)—See chapter entitled “Christ’s Human Nature—The Central Issue of the Gospel.”

54

Unrevealed Artifacts

T IS well that we summarize claimed discoveries which have not been produced for the inspection of others nor subject to crucial testing. Documentary abbreviations are: B - Discovered - Back Issues of Wyatt Newsletters, 1995 D - Discovered Newsletters Nos. 13, 14 October 1995 & January 1996 G - Jonathan Gray, Ark of the Covenant, 1997 I - International Discovery Times, Melbourne 1998 N - Ron Wyatt, Discovered: Noah’s Ark, World Bible Society, Nashville 1989 W - Mary Nell Wyatt, The Ark of the Covenant, Wyatt Archaeological Research, 1995

I

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Blood on the Mercy Seat (W 23) Blood chromosome analysis reports (G 497) The Laboratory where the blood was tested (G 497 The blood cells moving. (G 483) The blood cells dividing (Sabbath House Newsletter No.11 Oct.1998 p.3) A view of the blood cell chromosomes under the electron microscope (G 479) Ark of the Covenant (W 1-35) Seven golden candlesticks (G 337) Table of Shewbread (G 337) Altar of Burnt Incense (G 337) The Ephod (G 337) The priest’s mitre (G 337) The Book of the Law written by Moses (W 17) The sword thought to have belonged to Goliath (G 337) The oil lamps secreted with relics described above (W 17)

276

Unrevealed Artifacts 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31.

277

The tables of the Ten Commandments (W 17) The cave where the Ark of the Covenant is secreted (W 1-35) Noah’s body (I 4) Noah’s wife’s garments (N 22,23) Noah’s wife’s body (N 22,23) Noah’s wife’s jewelry (N 22,23) Ron Wyatt’s excavation license for Israel (This book chapter entitled, “The Elusive Excavating Permit”) The chariot wheels (I 4) Human skeletons in the Gulf of Aqaba (I 4) Skeletons of horses in the waters of the Gulf of Aqaba (I 4) The pillar on the Saudi side of the Red Sea Crossing (B 82) Brass Rings for Temple Curtains (G 337) Golden Censer (G 337) Mass Grave following the Destruction of Korah, Dathan and Abiram and their supporters (Ron Wyatt verbal statement to Russell Standish 30 Sept. 1998) Passageway through which the Ark was carried to the cave (W 18) Pharaoh’s Chariots (I 4)

55 W

Alibis

E HAVE stated our dictum that alibis are like mathematical fractions, they diminish in value with multiplication. Evaluate the following alibis. Below are the references used:

B - Discovered - Back Issues 1995, Wyatt Archaeological Research D - Discovered Newsletters Nos. 13, 14 October 1995 & January 1996 Wyatt Archaeological Research G - Jonathan Gray, Ark of the Covenant, 1997 I - International Discovery Times, 1998 N - Ron Wyatt, Discovered: Noah’s Ark, World Bible Society, Nashville 1989 S - Discussion between Ron Wyatt & Russell Standish, Melbourne, 30 Sept., 1998 T - Jonathan Gray, The Ark Conspiracy, 1993 W - Mary Nell Wyatt, The Ark of the Covenant, Wyatt Archaeological Research 1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

The Blood Chromosome Record cannot be revealed because the Israeli Authorities have prohibited such revelation as it could cause a war in the Middle East. (I 6;S) The chromosome count of the blood cannot be revealed because an angel of the Lord prohibited the release of this information until the Sunday Law is fully established. (S) The cave concealing the Ark is not for our eyes because God does not wish us to see it and the temple furniture within. (S) God closed the tunnel to the Ark cave because He did not desire the 3ABN group to see these holy objects. (S) God made the rubble in the rock-hewn room investigated by 3ABN group to become invisible. (S)

278

Alibis 6.

7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

279

The pillar of Solomon on the Egyptian side of the Gulf of Aqaba has lost its inscription by erosion or being chiseled out. (B 82) The pillar of Solomon on the Saudi Arabian shore which did possess the inscription has been removed by the Saudi authorities. (B 82) The chariot wheels are too fragile to bring to the surface (I 4) The clothing and jewelry on Noah’s wife were plundered by Turks. (N 22,23; G 334) Noah’s grave was destroyed by an earthquake (N 22,23; D 14) Noah’s wife’s grave was destroyed by an earthquake, (N 22,23; D 14) Ron Wyatt’s findings have never been published because there is a conspiracy of archaeologists to prevent confirmation of the Biblical record. (Jonathan Gray, The Ark Conspiracy) Christian archaeologists do not acknowledge Ron Wyatt’s claims because of jealousy. (Ibid., G 448, 449) The Ark of the Covenant cannot be displayed because it would incite extreme Jews to blow up the Dome of the Rock and cause a terrible Middle East conflict. (G467) One tour group in 1996 was shown by Ron Wyatt the vicinity of the claimed mass grave of 3,000 following the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, but no evidence was provided because they arrived there after dusk. (S) The claimed presentation to Mr. Nassif Mohommed Hassan of the chariot wheel hub with eight broken spokes, cannot be confirmed because he died in 1988. (Telephone conversation with Mr. Hassan’s daughter in Cairo) The Jerusalem Laboratory which analyzed the blood is reluctant to produce the results because they conflict with their religious beliefs. (S) Recent Israeli construction work around the Garden Tomb prevents the tour groups confirming some of Ron’s “findings.” (G 520) The laboratory does not wish its name to be revealed because it does not wish to be deluged with mail. (G 491) Ron Wyatt did not require advanced scuba diving equipment because he only spent 5 minutes at 200 feet below sea level. (S)

280

HOLY RELICS

21. The British Admiralty charts are grossly inaccurate because of heavy tides and currents disturbed the sounding equipment. (S) 22. Naturally the Israeli authorities would deny that they had given Ron Wyatt an excavating license because they do not desire to reveal such a sensitive matter. (G 477) 23. We cannot now visit Mt Sinai in Arabia because the Saudis have declared it to be a military zone. (I 5) 24. Dr. John Baumgardner does not support Ron Wyatt’s discoveries for fear of losing his job. (Letter from Dr. John Baumgardner written Sept. 26, 1996 and placed on the Internet) 25. The video pictures of the Ark of the Covenant were seriously blurred by a haze. (G 334) 26. The Kurds dismantled Noah’s home and took stones including the ones depicting the Flood story. (T 148) 27. The Kurds have broken up the graves of the region of Noah’s ark and taken the tomb stones away. (T 150) 28. Noah’s and his wife’s graves were dug up by a false colleague of Ron Wyatt. (T 150) 29. A column which bore a depiction of a boat shaped object as seen from a high hill was broken up for boundary markers. (T 152) 30. Dr. John Baumgardner denied having received the petrified wood Ron Wyatt gave to him for testing and did not return it (T 42,43) 31. A lawyer to whom Ron Wyatt gave rolls of film for processing subsequently stated that the film had disappeared. (T 42,43) 32. A prominent ark-writer broke into Ron’s office and stole valuable documents. (T 47) 33. The analyses of the “Ark of Noah rivets” are not yet for release. (T - appendix 16th page) 34. Ron Wyatt is reluctant to display his excavating license because it could embarrass the men whose signatures are placed upon it (Video report of Ron Wyatt’s presentation at Amazing Truth. Ministry, Australia, January 30, 1999)

56

Scientific Mistakes and Problems

T IS fashionable to be anti-intellectual. Manifestly we do not accept all the theories of scientists. Our book, The Big Bang Exploded, bears testimony to that fact. But science does play a decided role in verification as well as in our daily lives, for all true science is derived of God. Mistakes of valid science or technology noted are summarized below.

I

References Symbols: G - Jonathan Gray, Ark of the Covenant, 1997 I - International Discovery Times, 1998 N - Ron Wyatt, Discovered: Noah’s Ark, World Bible Society, Nashville 1989 S - Personal conversation between Ron Wyatt & Russell Standish, Melbourne, 30 Sept., 1998 W - Mary Nell Wyatt, The Ark of the Covenant, Wyatt Archaeological Research 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Chromosome counts can be made by use of an electron microscope. (G 499) Black blood is composed of living blood cells. (W 15) In the blood all blood cells possess chromosomes. (G 479) Satellite technology is used to perform detailed soundings of the sea bed. (S) The Gulf of Aqaba is subject to large tides and currents. (S) There is a sand-bridge across the Gulf of Aqaba. (I 4) Safe diving below 40 meters is possible with basic scuba diving equipment. (S) Black blood regenerates in appropriate growth media. (W 15) Blood cells divide in peripheral blood. (Sabbath House Newsletter No. 11 p.3)

281

282

HOLY RELICS

10. Burning sulfur will burn a hole in stainless steel. (Presentation by Ron Wyatt in Christchurch, New Zealand, Oct. 6, 1998) 11. Sulfur balls are only found at the proposed site of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Ibid.) 12. Magnesium in a percentage of 0.22 would greatly increase the heat of the burning sulfur. (Ibid.) 13. Burning sulfur can melt rock (Ibid.) 14. The color of a flame indicates its temperature (Ibid.) 15. Wave shadows are observable at a depth of 20 meters (65 feet) (Ibid.) 16. Thermal ionization occurred at Gomorrah (Ibid.) 17. Iron brackets were found at “Noah’s ark” (Ron Wyatt, Discovered: Noah’s Ark, 1987) 18. Fossilized gopher wood was found in Noah’s Ark (N) 19. Pre-flood trees had no growth rings. (In his book Origin by Design, Review & Herald Publishing Assoc. 1982, Harold Coffin catalogued over 200 antediluvian trees which possessed growth rings.) (N) 20. The Boy with the XX Blood illustrated Wyatt’s claim regarding Christ’s Chromosomal numbers. (G 486,487) 21. Laminated fossilized wood found in three layers was found in Noah’s Ark. (I 2) 22. White blood cells in peripheral blood can be observed under the microscope dividing. (Ron Wyatt’s video-taped informal meeting at Amazing Truth Ministry, Victoria, Australia January 30, 1999) 23. Bones do not disintegrate after 3,500 years when uncovered in the sea. (I 4)

57 H

Those Who Have Stood Nobly

OW we have admired pastors and laymembers who have nobly stood,

in love for their God and His truth, against the intrusion of the soul-destroying doctrines of the New Theology. Not for them were Satanic doctrines which denigrated sanctification. They eschewed the destruction of the sanctuary message; to their hurt they proclaimed the urgent need for Christian character perfection as they humbly sought the character of Christ; they themselves thought nothing of their reputations as they pressed the awesome implications of the human nature of Christ; the threat to their denominational employment did not prevent those serving Christ in the organized work from upholding the crucial High Priestly ministry of Christ. What a record of their noble fidelity will one day be revealed in the Book of Remembrance, a book which God will immortalize! The survival of God’s last-day church has been totally dependent upon their courageous stand. Yet some have been disfellowshipped, forsaken of their brethren and sisters, maligned and fearfully reviled, their names strewn about as disloyal and treacherous, while those who treated them thus blasphemed their God in their worship, denied His truth and followed after the ecumenical spirit so dear to Satan. But faithful souls have stood, and stood earnestly, unmoved by the prevailing wickedness in our church. God accords such faithful folk with the privilege of having been used of Him to save His church. Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been as Gomorrah. (Isaiah 1:9)

Imagine the fury that the Archdeceiver has directed against this very small remnant. Not content with his majority success, Satan is hell-bent on destroying the faith of these wonderful souls. They have not yielded to the frontal attack of apostasy. They have not been intimidated by loss of position. The threat of loss of church employment has left them unmoved. Bravely, yet with heart-breaking sorrow, some have endured

283

284

HOLY RELICS

disfellowshipment. Almost every conceivable wile of the devil has failed to take them away from their faith and their eternal heritage. But Satan is a wily foe. Never can he be accused of an easy surrender of his diabolical aims. He is indefatigable in his efforts to destroy even the very elect. Satan seeks to destroy the faith and plans to enforce fearful penalties upon those who do not yield to his sophistries. Sister White reveals Satan’s strategy, spoken in his own words: “But before proceeding to extreme measures, we [Satan and his evil angels] must exert all our wisdom to deceive and ensnare” (Testimonies to Ministers p.473).

We have a deep concern that, while the Scriptures warn repeatedly of lastday deceptions, many are accepting exciting new ideas, heedless of these warnings, accepting unverified statements as if the evidence had been produced, and not considering the possibility of deception. This is a grave concern. We have long preached concerning Roman Catholics accepting the apparitions of Mary as though there was only one possibility—that they are genuine. Let us not follow the serious Roman Catholic mistake in not even considering Christ’s many warnings of last-day deceptions. Let us not forget the results of the Roman Catholic mistake in not considering if the apparitions of Mary are devilish deceptions. That which Satan has failed to achieve through regular means, he now attempts to do by subtlety. His success amongst those who have stood so nobly is alarming. No longer does he use a frontal attack. Such attacks have failed to move noble men and women. But his subtlety knows few bounds. That which he has failed to achieve by frontal attacks he is now achieving with alarming success by the use of symbols, the proclamation of exciting discoveries, however unsubstantiated, and the fulfillment of our hearts’ desires. Oblivious to the deceptive ways of Satan, wonderful, noble members have been swept along in a wave of excitement, a crush of improbable claims, a fulfillment of long-desired “evidence” of Biblical veracity. We have substituted “sincerity” and evangelistic success for the law and the testimony, a very perilous deviation from God’s standard. Many, unwittingly, have virtually decided that belief in the “discoveries” is a standard for orthodoxy. A vast amount of God’s time has been expended to uphold that which is an utter destruction of the very faith for which for many years we have stood so nobly. We, ourselves, are quite unable to hold back such a tide, a tide which may better be termed as tsunami. But our God can. It is in His grace and power which we trust. Our dear, dear brothers and sisters, please ensure

Those Who Have Stood Nobly

285

“that no man take thy crown” (Rev.3:11). We have truly strongly upheld doctrines of: 1. The fallen humanity of our Savior 2. The Sanctuary Message 3. Sanctification as a condition of salvation 4. Victory over sin 5. Christ’s High Priestly ministry 6. Standing against deception. These wonderful truths now stand imperiled. The archdeceiver has found a successful ploy to get under the guard of God’s noble flock. No wonder Christ warned “Take heed that no man deceive you” (Matt. 24:4). Let us examine each of these doctrines. 1. Christ’s fallen human nature like ours—the “seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:16) and “the seed of David” (Romans 1:3). But what Ron Wyatt has proposed is a man who was not made after normal human seed—a freak composed of only 52% of the normal complement of chromosomes. (We use lower case letters for the words “man” and “he” in the last sentence deliberately, for Ron Wyatt’s descriptions in no wise represent Christ). And this destruction of truth is based upon zero evidence, for no living person, including, we would suggest, Ron Wyatt himself, has even seen this blood, much less reviewed a report of its chromosomal content. Christ, as depicted by Ron Wyatt, most certainly did not possess a full human nature similar to ours. The Bible plainly states that Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil (Hebrews 2:14, emphasis added).

Both Christ’s flesh and His blood were made the same as ours so that He could be our substitute. Our chromosomes, which carry our genes, are the very fiber of our physical beings. They carry our inherited tendencies to evil. Would Christ not possess an advantage over us if he possessed almost 48 percent less chromosomes than us, thus assuring Him of less defective genes than we possess? None can say for certain, but make no mistake, some would be inclined to offer this as an excuse for their failure to overcome sin. 2. Christ’s High Priestly Ministry—A condition of Christ becoming our High Priest is that He was made like unto His brethren in all things.

286

HOLY RELICS

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:17)

The christ of Ron Wyatt most decidedly was not made like unto his brethren in all things. Thus is Christ’s qualification as our High Priest negated. 3. Victory over sin—We can only have victory over sin if Christ provides power to overcome temptation. But since Wyatt’s christ is a bizarre creature, so unlike his brethren, he cannot succour us when we are tempted, for only One made like unto us in all things is able to succour us when tempted. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)

4.

5.

Sanctification—is predicated upon the power of Christ to give us victory over sin. For the reasons stated above, Wyatt’s christ possesses no such power. The Sanctuary message—teaches that the blood was only placed on the Mercy Seat on the day of the atonement. As in the type, so it is in the antitype. Wyatt’s christ placed his blood on the Mercy Seat at the Passover, thus teaching us the errors that our sins were blotted out at the cross, and the atonement was then completed. Such doctrines falsify the type of Leviticus 16. Further Wyatt fulfills Leviticus 16 on the earthly Mercy Seat. Inspiration plainly states that the sprinkling of the antitypical blood on the Mercy Seat occurs in the heavenly sanctuary.

Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the Mercy Seat, and before the Mercy Seat (Leviticus 16:15). Compare Patriarchs and Prophets, 357, 358.

Thus has the New Theology error been proposed in symbols. 6. Deception—We Seventh-day Adventists had always held that we were so alert to deception that we were, in God’s grace, able to discern between truth and error. But once again we were deceived. Wyatt’s christ has spoken to him in person, and this account has been believed despite Christ’s direct warning For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many (Matthew 24:5)

Those Who Have Stood Nobly

287

Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there: believe it not. (Matthew 24:23) Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth; behold he is in the secret chambers: believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:26,27)

How crafty is Satan! For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (Matthew 24:24)

Christ cannot be our Example unless He has been made as we are. Our very being in the physical sense is determined by the genes in our chromosomes— our appearance, the color of our hair and our eyes, indeed almost all our physical and mental characteristics. Character is an entirely different matter; that is determined by our choice of leaders in our life—Christ or Satan. Our weakened physical and mental strengths and our deteriorated moral worth are each dependent upon our chromosomes. Dear, dear fellow believers, Satan’s deceptions are bold and subtle. When we turn from one series of deceptions, rest assured that Satan will design even more subtle deceptions. Each morning we need to pray, “Lord, let me rest upon the law and the testimony, and protect me from the deceptions of Satan.” We have spared no effort to present the facts of this book before you. It is our pastoral duty. Error is never benign. The basic deception has been to seek stronger evidence than that found in God’s Word, evidence which Christ has chosen not to provide. We have written in deep concern and Christian love. Do understand that our love for God’s flock is deep. We dare not stand by when such peril threatens their spiritual well-being. There will be unity, true unity, but only as, in Christ’s strength, we hold unitedly to the faith. Stand true! Jesus’ coming is nigh! Love the faith! Hold to it! Let no man take thy crown! Take heed that no man deceive you! Prove all things!

58

True Friends in the Faith

author this book has been far from an easy task. We do not here refer to the hundreds of hours of research undertaken, nor the large period of time involved in writing, polishing and proof-reading the text of the book. Rather we refer to the fact that many of our dearest friends in the faith, brothers and sisters whom we deeply respect and have done so for many years, many of whom to which we owe great debts of gratitude, have accepted and promoted Ron Wyatt’s and Jonathan Gray’s lecture series, video presentations and books. These are friends godly, loyal and true, who have encouraged us and stood by us in the deep valleys of our experiences, men and women who themselves have suffered many kinds of abuse simply because they have been steadfast in their faith and earnest in their warnings to those in peril. Many of these treasured colleagues have felt so convicted of the truth of Ron Wyatt’s claims that they have felt affronted by the fact that we do not share their convictions in respect of the Wyatt claims. They felt no need to learn the cogent reasons for our doubts, both Biblical and factual. Possibly some will not read this book, so certain are they that Ron Wyatt’s claims are true. Not a few point to matters they believe verify Scripture, while admitting that other areas are doubtful, in particular the claims surrounding the Ark of the Covenant. But they brush this crucial area aside, as if it were of no consequence, not understanding that the entire truths for which they stood are swept away by various claims made in respect to the Ark of the Covenant. Jim Pinkoski, in personal correspondence with Colin, stated that despite the presentation of no evidence, Ron Wyatt’s claims concerning the Ark of the Covenant are credible. He based his opinion on the fact that Ron’s other claims had been proven correct. As we have seen, Ron has not verified in a credible manner these claims. Even if he had, Jim Pinkoski’s view would be quite invalid. It would well serve Satan’s deceptive purposes to provide evidence for genuine claims in order to establish credibil-

T

O

288

True Friends in the Faith

289

ity and then use this credibility to insinuate unsubstantiated error. Every new concept, doctrine or Bible-related claim must be thoroughly tested on its own merits. Confirmed evidence must be available for detailed evaluation. Some, we feel certain, will, following deeper study, recognize that error is always associated with truth. The deeper the error, the more truth surrounding it, lest its deception be patently obvious. Pressure has been exerted upon us to desist from writing this book. We must never forget that, Some have feared that if in even a single point they acknowledge themselves in error, other minds would be led to doubt the whole theory of truth. Therefore they have felt that investigation should not be permitted; that it would tend to dissension and disunion. But if such is to be the result of investigation, the sooner it comes the better. If there are those whose faith in God’s Word will not stand the test of and investigation of the scriptures, the sooner they are revealed the better; for then the way will be opened to show them their error. We can not hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstance, to be relinquished. There is but one who is infallible, — He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 105).

This counsel applies primarily to the Scriptures, but is also valid in other more secular areas of life. It applies to us as writers and to the readers with equal force. This is the reason why we have never counseled anyone against placing their convictions and evidences concerning the subject of this book in writing. That is not our duty. It is our duty alone to compare what is written with the one infallible guide, Scripture, and with the proven facts of history, observation and science where these matters are applicable. Unread, some have pre-empted our book, defending matters which we have not denied. As pastors, however, we are deeply conscious of our need and duty to impress upon God’s children, and also to warn our own hearts, that the discovery of islands of truth in an ocean or even a small lake of error, must be opposed. Many precious souls have been lost when, embracing a large island of truth, they have been oblivious to the small sea of error surrounding it. As pastors seeking to do our duty, we must give warning. Do you wonder that when I see the beginning of a work that would remove some of the pillars of our faith, I have something to say? I must obey the command, “Meet it!” . . . I must bear the messages of warning that God gives me to bear, and then leave with the Lord the results. I must now present the matter in

290

HOLY RELICS

all its bearings; for the people of God must not be despoiled. (Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 207,208)

Some of our dear friends, in suggesting that we refrain from publishing this book, have no doubt forgotten that the major reason for which Russell accepted dismissal from the organized work was his refusal to permit the organization to dictate whether or not he could publish books upholding truth. Yet most of these dear friends who today are proffering similar advice staunchly supported Russell’s stand in 1992. Some have earnestly urged that if this book, yet unread by them, were to be published, it would divide Christ’s flock. Alas, that division had arisen before we spoke publicly or wrote a word on the matter. Although it is well known to many that the presentations of Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray have breached the unity of the “very small remnant”, there has been an escalation in these presentations rather than a diminution. Thus the matter of disunity cannot be a major factor in the thinking of these people, else they would have ceased to promote the Wyatt-Gray presentations and materials. We ourselves do not urge that these meetings cease unless those presenting them alter their convictions. Truth shines ever so brightly when compared with error. Some have invoked the Gamaliel advice in order to urge our silence: And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:38,39)

This is sound advice. It applies equally to Ron Wyatt’s claims and to our own concerns expressed in this book. Let none use it unilaterally. We are perfectly happy for our earnest concerns to stand the test of time. While we have documented large amounts of evidence which casts grave doubts upon many of Ron Wyatt’s claims, we remind our readership that our major concern is the destruction of the truth of God. Such destruction can only be measured and evaluated by Scripture. It must ever be primary in our evaluation. It is upon the law and testimony that the work of Ron Wyatt must stand in judgment. We, too, must take our concerns before the same judiciary. This judgment cannot be superficial. It is true that we know that the five cities of the plain were in close proximity to the Dead Sea. But precisely where they were is unstated in Scripture. We must believe every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, but let us not judge orthodoxy upon a precise site that God in His wisdom has chosen not to describe

True Friends in the Faith

291

in irrefutable detail. If He had, then we must accept. To deny that site would be to cast aspersions upon the veracity of God’s Word. But God has not identified the sites of the cities with precision. The same is true of the precise site of the crucifixion. We know it occurred just outside the city wall of Jerusalem. There are a few other points of assistance, but none tells us the exact location of the spot. The same is true also of Christ’s tomb. We know Noah’s Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. But once more the Bible does not designate which one. Where Scripture is silent, let us not make a human identification stand as a sign of righteousness and a failure to accept such a site as a denial equivalent to the denial of a plain Word of God. We know, after all, that Christ was born in Bethlehem. The Greek Orthodox Church claims that it knows the exact position of the manger; a large star has even been placed on the floor where they claim the manger was precisely located. Surely we would not make this identification a test of one’s acceptance of Bible truth. Yes, we must believe that Christ was born in Bethlehem, for the Old Testament prophesied it (Micah 5:2). The New Testament declares the fulfillment of that prophecy (Matthew 2:1). But should we accept the Greek Orthodox Church’s claim to have located the exact spot in Bethlehem, in the absence of irrefutable proof? Certainly not! Sufficient is it for us to accept the Word of God—Christ was born in Bethlehem. A similar restraint is appropriate in evaluating the claim of Roman Catholics and other denominations in their selection of the grave over which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been built to be the genuine grave of Christ. Christ was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea (John 19:38– 40). Let that revealed fact be the standard of truth, that we go not beyond Scripture. There is safety in divine revelation. We have very frequently been accused of motives that have never entered our minds. These include jealousy of Ron Wyatt’s success, loss of ministry income, closed mindedness, and a lack of interest in learning the evidence. The one matter we have been seeking is evidence. This book indicates how diligently we have done so. We have read numbers of Ron Wyatt’s magazines and books, viewed his major videotapes and approached numbers of individuals who have toured on both Jonathan’s and Ron’s trips to the sites or visited of their own volition. Truth can ever afford to be fair. Where we believe that no conclusive evidence denies the site, we have not ruled it out.

292

HOLY RELICS

Rather than adopting a stance on the basis of closing our minds, we have diligently sought our Lord to open our eyes. We support wholeheartedly and warmly every faithful servant of God. That brotherly love extends to those in denominational employ as well as our wonderful colleagues in God-ordained self-supporting work. So far as a fiscal motive, our trust is in Christ and in Him alone. He provides the means for our ministries. Our modest stipends remain unaltered whether our ministries receive little or much. We are grateful that the great bulk of our means is invested in outreach work and does not in any way enter our pockets. This latter charge has been leveled principally against Remnant Ministries. Every year since Remnant Ministries was established in 1992, there has been a small rise in total financial gifts to our ministry. The maximum rise over the previous year until the calendar year of 1997 (we use the calendar year as our fiscal year) was 10 per cent. In 1998 God saw fit to increase the ministry income by 65% over the 1997 income. We cite this, both to thank our God for His great goodness and God’s humble flock for their trust in our work, but also in order to kindly request God’s wonderful people to seek other motives for our stand. These motives have been expressed in the previous chapter. We do sincerely love our God and His flock. We do want to pursue the duty God places upon all His ministers. Our dear, loyal friends in Christ, we are near kingdom time. Each of us desires heaven and to share heaven, not only with our God, but with each precious earthly loved one and friend. Remember we are still your brethren. We trust that we will ever seek to serve our Lord in fidelity and be true and loving to each of those whom we have come to trust and treasure. The fellowship of the saints is a blessed joy. We know, at least in part, the fearful retribution awaiting us in the judgment if we seek to lead others astray. We are equally cognizant of the same punishment if we do not warn when we perceive that danger looms before those with whom we fellowship. Satan tempts us with many evil motives, that we confess. But we ever seek the wisdom of Christ in order to overrule such vile motives and have Him imbue us with His motives within our lives. Please pray we ever shall so do. Worldly friends are special; Christian friends even a more special blessing. To have such friends on every continent and in many nations is for us a great joy. But let us never forget that ...there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:24).

It is this Friend in whom we all place our trust. As we do so we may rest assured that Christ will unite us as true human friends.

True Friends in the Faith

293

Christ’s advice rings in our ears, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee (Mark 5:19).

This we gladly do. He has done great things for two little scallywags from Newcastle. He has provided us with a life well worth living, both in denominational and self-supporting work. He has guided us gently in spite of ourselves, called us to a ministry we never sought and provided us with wonderful loved ones and friends who have made our lives such a happy journey. Praise His name! Best of all, He died for us—He is our blessed hope!

Notes Regarding This Electronic Book Pagination: this electronic book was not scanned from the printed book. In some cases, there may be slight variations in pagination from the printed copy. Thus, any references to page numbers in this book should be referenced to the printed edition. Sharing copies: Due to the nature of electronic books, they can be easily shared with others. However, we request that you honor the fact that this book (including the electronic copy) is copyrighted, and therefore it is not to be copied to distribute to others unless written permission is obtained from the publisher.

Current Publications Available In some of our electronic books, you may find a list of other books that are published by Hartland Publications. This list was compiled at the time the book was published; therefore, it may be out of date by the time you read it. To browse the current books available by Colin and Russell Standish and many other authors, please go to: http://www.hartlandpublications.com Thank you!