Several years back we had a message regarding the missing Ark of the Covenant where I introduced 6 theories as to where it is located. Please take note that this is not an exhaustive list, but a list of the more commonly heard theories. Actually, one of them, the "Ron Wyatt" excavation is NOT really a well-heard theory given that he was an amateur archeologist and as such, the establishment does not want to listen. However, I found the location intriguing and the scriptural references very significant, so I thought I would mention this. At the very least, I am hoping the world will hear more of this man.
Right now, our church is in emotional turmoil as we split off from a mainline denomination lately (we felt they were not scriptural) but this has hosted a whole new set of unforeseen problems. At present, a very capable and interesting woman who believes as ol' Liaf here now teaches the class I used to teach, but she was out this past week so I filled in. Although it's been awhile since I had a live audience (as opposed to readers that read messages here that were preconceived), I think I did very fine and held their attention and the words just flowed out of my mouth as in the old days. I prayed beforehand that the Spirit should guide us into the subject for a one day shot like that. The temptation was to comment on the church's state of affairs, but then the Lord directed me to a web site about the Ark. Yeah! Why not? Who wants to get caught up in tabloid subjects when there is much to learn, and in this case, does not involve personalities directly.
This is the site I stumbled on, printed out a copy and we read and thought on it.
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/arkintro.htm
Links to some web sites change quite often, so I hope this will be out for a while given that it is a very interesting article. I'm just going to summarize my understanding of it but keep in mind it's best to go to the source so I am in no way speaking for the man and their organization. I will also give my opinions on it.
The Israeli government and property owners gave Ron Wyatt permission to dig outside of old Jerusalem (known as the Calvary Escarpment). This was felt to be the leading of God. This very long excavation resulted in finding honeycombed tunnels. One small hole was found leading into some sort of chamber, and the hole was enlarged enough so that a helper could enter in. However, he exited very horrified never to return again as if there was something he seen or presence that scared him. Ron himself entered in and found what he knew to be the tabernacle objects and claimed that he fainted for about 45 minutes. However, the sanctuary objects were covered with dry rotted wood and animal skins. At the far end was a casement just the size of the Ark of the Covenant.
The article goes on to claim that the chamber was cleaned out (as it was filled with small filler rocks) and the sanctuary articles (minus the Ark) were uncovered and cleaned up. Even the Israeli government verified the existence of the finds and claimed to their satisfaction that the Ark has been found. Why was this not publicized? The political/religious ramifications are great, so they claim. Due to the volatile situation over there, one has to be careful as the article cited several examples of violence that erupted (and the implication was because of the finds). In other words, like any good UFO story, there was a cover-up here.
The article continues on to say regarding a crack in the casement lid where Ron could insert a colonoscope into it to take pictures, which came out blurred, but were computer enhanced. Thus the article shows computer-generated pictures of the Ark. The article concludes with references to its location and this crack. 20 feet above the chamber, Ron found what was apparently a "cross hole" for inserting the base of the cross with a crack in it. The bible says the "rocks were rent" at the crucifixion in which this crack would go straight down to the Ark via the crack in the casement. Remains of blood were found all along this path. See where this is going? Christ's blood ran down the side, through the cracks all the way down through the casement crack and onto the mercy seat of the Ark! Those who are not theologically obtuse can definitely see the significance of this. In addition, Ron claimed that this blood drained onto what would be the right side of the mercy seat where Christ sat "on the right hand of the Father". Claims were made that this blood was analyzed and found in it only a half set of chromosomes except for the sex-determining chromosome, as if there was no human father (i.e. the Virgin Birth of Christ). The story claims that the Israeli government sealed up the entrance again due to the ramifications in finding the Ark. People were not supposed to have known about this.
The class was amazed, although we compared the claims with Scripture and found no real holes in the theory. In other words, had this happened, and had the Ark looked the way he claims, this would not be a contradiction that we could find. The end of the book of Exodus gives the details of the Ark's appearance, and Leviticus mentions the sprinkling of blood on the mercy seat. The New Testament makes that definite connection of Christ with the Ark and He was born humanly only of Mary. Likewise, we last hear of the Ark's presence around the captivity of Judah. It would make sense that the Lord had it hidden so that Christ's blood could anoint the mercy seat. How else would this have been done since no (or few) priests then believed in Christ and certainly would not have taken His blood to anoint the mercy seat? God had to use the captivity to arrange its hiding so that it would be positioned somewhere to receive Christ's blood.
What is a person to make of all this? My jury is still out, in spite of the theological beauty in all this. It won't say this is not the case, but I just do not have enough personal proof to satisfy my curiosity. I told the class that if such claims were made, and I used the references of the violence as an example, that should not be hard to find in independent news sources. To my dismay, the references are too generalized to pin down anything specific, even though I have a great knack of putting in the right words in search engines.
For example, the most specific reference to the violence was stated,
"When the Israeli government released some information about the find, a riot ensued at the Dome of the Rock resulting in over 20 deaths."
How do we "Google" or "Yahoo" this? One has to put in just the right words and decide what needs quotes. I entered: riot "Dome of the Rock" 20. As our computer geeks must know, if I just enter Dome of the Rock without the quotes, I will get many more results back with the words split up. The quotes keep those words together. The key thing is what took place (riot) at the location (Dome of the Rock) resulting in over 20 deaths (20). I did not find such an event. I did find an event that took place at the Ibrahimi Mosque back in 1993 that sounded similar. If our readers find anything else, please let us know of the event AND an independent news source for example.
As for the Israeli government confirming the finds, when I looked that up, I did not specifically find an independent news source of that or any other government, agency or whatever that collaborated this other than supporters of Ron. However, there were many articles involving the temple implements, or furniture, that had tones of political eggshells. These independent articles did indeed agree the tension was great, and covering up something like this would not be unfounded due to Zionist fears, more turmoil, wars and so forth. If this story of Ron Wyatt's is a hoax, I must admit they covered their bases there to make that claim. It's the same with UFO's. Take the Roswell incident for example. Lots of witnesses and even government collaboration (just like Ron stated about Israel), but then later on denial ensued. So, if somebody makes the comment that there is no article regarding the Israeli government and the temple implements, then the answer will obviously be that there is a cover-up.
I found an article on Wikipedia about Ron Wyatt. Wikipedia has strict guidelines and analysis as to what gets put on there; so much so that some people believe the overheads there have an ax to grind. However, that being said, we at least know it is carefully watched for a free online encyclopedia. I did not care what they had to say about Ron, but they require sources (pro and con) as references at the end of each article. I wanted to check the "con" articles (internet links) to put Ron's claims to the grindstone. Some of them were downright ridiculous (a "cult watcher" group for example). I was waiting for some solid scientific claims counter to what he found and instead the articles started with his background. Then I saw the light. Ron had a Seventh Day Adventist background and it was a subtle form of SDA bashing. Mind you, I do not 100% agree with SDA, but to bring up that point is nothing more than a lame-brained cheap shot. We here at eternalthrone had the same problem with the "critics" of the Lost Tribes. They start of by saying, "Do you know what that guy's morality is like?" and come to the illogical conclusion that if his life is in shambles, then what he says cannot be true about the Lost Tribes. No, that is not the case. There are many psychotic child molesters that will take advantage of a child but otherwise have perfectly normal brains to teach math. Likewise, just because one is perceived to have an improper religious doctrine does not exclude such a person from possibly finding the Ark.
However, I do have my own two personal concerns. The first one is regarding an article from a person who claimed to have worked with Ron. This person liked Ron and was very respectful, but disagreed with Ron's interpretations of the objects that he found. He described Ron as an excellent speaker, and one who could fire up the imagination. He was not deliberately a liar, but he felt that Ron's personality was such that he could talk himself into believing he found what he wanted to seek. The impression I got was that every young boy wants to find a secret buried treasure. And indeed the boy does find something, but mom and dad know it's not really treasure, but it is to the boy. I find that if one had such a personality disposition, then this is quite possible. There is no malice on the part of Ron, he sincerely believes what he found, but the evidence is skewed, and there is really no Ark.
The second concern I have is that while it is possible that a cover-up exists, I find it a little uncomfortable that there seems to be only Ron's supporters that collaborate on all this. Isn't there a renegade university professor somewhere? How about an independent witness? An officer? Maybe someone oversaw the events dealing with the excavations that could report independently of Ron? But I do not find any. Perhaps I missed something and will be open to other sources if anyone finds any. This reminds me of Joseph Smith and the angel Maroni giving him the golden plates witnessed only by a group of insider men and nobody else saw anything. That does bother me somewhat. Here at eternalthrone we teach about the Lost Tribes. "Isn't this as nonsensical as believing the Ark as been found?" A skeptic may ask. Just look up articles about the Sakas, Cimmerians, and the Lost Tribes, and you will find several viewpoints --- renegade professors, ministers, archeologists, etc. independent of each other will say similar things about them. There are enough people that broke away from the mainline that collaborate on these subjects.
But unlike critics who say that there is no evidence and therefore the Ark's discovery must be false, I say that it is inconclusive. Critics often say, "The evidence is weak, therefore it cannot exist." What they don't realize is that they are coming to just as solid of a conclusion, but in the negative. I'm not narrow like them. Regarding my first concern, the fellow could be wrong about Ron. As for my second concern regarding witnesses, maybe nobody else was interested enough in Ron's work and thought he was a nut as they thought of Noah. Most people are too dense to care about the significance of the Ark, so maybe it was just Ron and his companions. One has to realize that sometimes the world is so obtuse, they "still don't get it" if a swinging 20-pound sandbag would hit them on the side of the head.
Other than my concerns, I find nothing solid that states it cannot be as Ron reported it. And because of this, my jury is still out. I find it a very exciting possibility. And if it is true, I hope in the near future ahead we will hear more about this.
One last thing. What about the Ark being taken to Ireland the way many "Lost Tribes" ministries teach? Well, I learned something in the past year. There is a theory amongst some Jewish scholars that there were two arks. One was the golden one we are talking about here, and the other was the one made by Moses. This ark was a plain wooden one. If that is the case, then indeed the "ark" could be there in Ireland--- the other one!