设万维读者为首页 广告服务 技术服务 联系我们 关于万维
简体 繁体 手机版
万维读者网 > 彩虹之约 > 帖子
Why I refute the likes of Wyat
送交者: mean 2010年06月15日09:11:38 于 [彩虹之约] 发送悄悄话
Because his is the kind of people who HURT, rather help, the credibility of the Christian cause. Like sheep, certain naive Christians are willing to believe any and every foolishness fed to them, follow and even fund such frauds at every turn, perpetuating their lies and deceit.

That is what gets me so fed up. What did Christ tell us? "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them." Yet year after year, Christians willingly follow false miracle workers, false archeologists, false teachers, whose biggest goal is their life is Mammon. And Mammon they get.

Ron Wyatt is a well known fraud (see this personal account at http://ldolphin.org/wyatt1.html), his discoveries well proven hoax, and here comrade Zhang is still asking me for proof. In 1992, Creation Ministries International (a Creationist ministry) thoroughly investigated Noah's ark (http://creation.com/special-report-amazing-ark-expose), and what did they find? Nothing.

alleged Noah's Ark... right... ark...

Then, after Ron's death from cancer in 1999, the leadership of the Wyatt Archeological Research or WAR (i.e. those who build their career on Wyatt's "discoveries".) attempted to substantiate Ron's testimony regarding his discovery of the Ark. Several attempts were made in 2005 and 2006 to excavate the cross hole area and find the chamber with the Ark. While they found the crack photographed by Wyatt, it appears in the process of doing the excavation, that they destroyed the cross hole and plugged up the crack. Subsequently pouring water over the top of the crack simply caused the water to run down their excavation channel. They also found mollusks (snail-like animal shells) and the dark substance the mollusks emit (Chitin) and concluded that what Ron Wyatt saw and gathered was this Chitin (my note: NOT blood).

So why was I asked for proof after 1999, when no one but WAR even cares about Ron Wyatt anymore? Because Jonathan Gray, someone who makes a living selling his "discoveries" of ancient super-civilizations and "conspiracies" of modern age, said that he verified Wyatt's account. Remember the death of "Holy Blood Holy Grail" and its resurrection in "Da Vinci Code"?

Here we have, an "archeologist" who, according to one of his speeches, mistakenly placed Egyptian civilization and Maya civilization (rudimentary culture from 2000 BC on but in all seriousness, 250 AD) in the same era of 3000 BC. Hello? Do we even need proof against his credibility or lack thereof? If it doesn't, please this passage:

There is a Jonathan Gray video purporting to show these on the bottom of the Red Sea. In one part, Gray claims that a ‘British Admiralty chart’ he is holding shows a ‘sand bridge’ with great depths either side.

The hydrographic office of the UK Ministry of Defense is, by international agreement, the authority for charting the Red Sea. A Mrs M. H. sent them the video; they wrote back to her that:
* Gray’s chart could be positively identified on blowups as United States chart no. 62020.
* ‘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 U.S. chart held by Mr Gray.’
* Gray’s comments about the ‘great depths’ also mislead.
* The naturally lit video footage of the sea floor could not possibly have been filmed anywhere near the spot claimed by Gray, as insufficient light would penetrate at that depth.

Subsequently, Gray published a second letter from the same office, claiming it vindicated his claims of a ‘sand bridge.’ However, when we checked with them, they wrote that their comments had been ‘seriously edited,’ with ‘selected parts’ shown under their letterhead. The full letter, which they sent us, ‘does not confirm the existence of a “sand bridge.”’

Need I say more?
    很简单 - mean 06/16/10 (161)
      我问的是你怎样看李常受,而不是聚会所 - 张钧 06/16/10 (121)
        I'd summerized everything - mean 06/16/10 (131)
    我看还是打住吧。免得班主为难! - 得胜 06/16/10 (123)
      回CALGARY再讨论? - 张钧 06/16/10 (269)
        I have to be back at - 得胜 06/16/10 (106)
        认识谁? - mean 06/16/10 (136)
          他在CALGARY是在我们中间聚会,去了加州才去聚会所聚会的 - 张钧 06/16/10 (145)
    异端, I cannot say it - xiahong 06/16/10 (88)
      他为什么问你我就不清楚了, - adajo 06/16/10 (112)
      谢谢弟兄,不是什么跳跃思维...... - 张钧 06/16/10 (112)
    I dont wanna waste more time - mean 06/16/10 (158)
      u are wasting ur time - gems 06/16/10 (99)
        沒有证实一说 - mean 06/16/10 (112)
          不错,对过红海的地点是有争议,但对西奈山没有争议 - 张钧 06/16/10 (162)
            没有争议? - mean 06/16/10 (113)
              你又误解了 - 张钧 06/16/10 (90)
                说实话 - mean 06/16/10 (98)
                  你这不是就事论事的实话 - 张钧 06/16/10 (107)
                    就事论事的实话? - mean 06/16/10 (116)
                      请你在转贴别人的贴子时注明出处,谢谢! - 张钧 06/16/10 (119)
                        gems 说的好啊 - mean 06/16/10 (125)
                          冷静一下,提醒你转贴时注明出处有错吗? - 张钧 06/16/10 (122)
                            ??? - mean 06/17/10 (107)
                    你相信考古还是相信圣经?假如圣经的记载没有考古发现,你还相不 - 背纤 06/16/10 (92)
                      当然相信圣经的话,没有考古的证明,还是相信圣经的话 - 张钧 06/16/10 (117)
                        你是如何考证出我是聚会所的?  /无内容 - 背纤 06/16/10 (108)
                          对不对呢?  /无内容 - 张钧 06/16/10 (90)
                          没有考证,而是灵里的直觉 - 张钧 06/16/10 (100)
                          是不是都要对李和恢复版圣经有一个正确的宣告 - 张钧 06/16/10 (102)
        就是有7000个福音团体证实也是白搭, - 雅1 06/16/10 (117)
          弟兄你完全误会了...... - 张钧 06/16/10 (112)
            你才误会了,信道来自听道。 - 雅1 06/16/10 (171)
              听什么道?听你我信口而说的道,还是圣经的道? - 张钧 06/16/10 (100)
                听什么道?-->写在圣经上的话 - 雅1 06/16/10 (125)
                  主所说的记载在哪里?记载在圣经里! - 张钧 06/16/10 (115)
                    记载在圣经里 NE 记载在考古证明的圣经里  /无内容 - 雅1 06/16/10 (88)
                  there is no other 道, no such - 雅1 06/16/10 (116)
                    圣经中有没有口传的的道? - 张钧 06/16/10 (93)
                    请问你怎样解释希腊文的Rehma和Logos?  /无内容 - 张钧 06/16/10 (98)
                      dont know dont care  /无内容 - 雅1 06/16/10 (93)
            偏偏你贴上来的 - mean 06/16/10 (99)
              圣经考古证明的是圣经本身记载的准确 - 张钧 06/16/10 (112)
                神的话语不是考古能证明的,也不能用考古去证明。人类历史都无法 - 背纤 06/16/10 (101)
                  注意:真实的历史和人对历史的解释是不一样的  /无内容 - 张钧 06/16/10 (119)
                    真实的历史或历史的真实是无法复原的;从而,人对历史的解释往往 - 背纤 06/16/10 (94)
                可是你却举错了例子 - mean 06/16/10 (126)
                  举错了例子?也许......加上一个小见证 - 张钧 06/16/10 (125)
                    不信的人都说是要看到神迹才信;他们即使见了神迹还是不信, - 背纤 06/16/10 (122)
                      神迹没有用吗?有用!让他们事后懊悔,还是可以信!  /无内容 - 张钧 06/16/10 (111)
    圣经考古怎么和武功密集一样? - 雅1 06/16/10 (96)
  apologies - mean 06/15/10 (174)
    Okay! - 得胜 06/15/10 (141)
  不要很有道理!谢谢好文分享!  /无内容 - 得胜 06/15/10 (89)
标 题 (必选项):
内 容 (选填项):
一周点击热帖 更多>>
2009: 请教“耶稣的门徒”网友--耶稣是被造的
2009: “听从+门徒”不是省油的灯
2008: 请大家把能重复的错误列一下,好集中反映
2008: 版主救命,我“湖鱼”的笔名,总说我密
2007: 主日廿四 [海德堡要理问答/第九课(称义
2007: ZT 普利高津对时间的追问
2006: 彩虹网友精彩对话回顾13:基督徒怎样把
2006: ZT: 反应反映