John MacArthur Didn't like to speak in tongues.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Itime)… Ron claimed that the tablets were written in "proto Aramaic?" Now, concerning the term "proto Aramaic" that would be the theoretical reconstructed ancestor of all Aramaic languages. As far as I know, and I'm no Ron Wyatt expert, but, does he even know what "PROTO" Aramaic looks like? Did one of the angels turn to Ron and tell him, "oh, by the way, that's PROTO Aramaic" I guess I'll never know where he came up with that. I must say that over the years Ron Wyatt's story just kept getting stranger and stranger. Since he is no longer available for comment, we can only turn to those who hold more expertease concerning the Ron Wyatt story. I for one am extremely eager to read what Brother Steven has to offer to prove the story of the Ark of the Covenant's existence.

Rebecca Tourbiaire goes into the proto-Aramaic in the discussion here:

THE ARK AND THE BLOOD – The discovery of the Ark of the Covenant
https://arkfiles.net/the-ark-and-the...-the-covenant/

Ron knew some about ancient languages and properly additional consulted with others and researched into it after he saw them. For many years before he started looking for the Ark, he studied ancient cultures in the Middle East. When I traveled with him several times in Egypt, he even read hieroglyphs for me and he also knew a lot about proto-Aramaic. Even though he did not have his education in archeology he was very learned. I remember being amazed at everything he actually knew.

He did claim it said the same as Exodus 20 written in the old paleo-Hebrew alphabet.
Ron Wyatt did not mention the size and so the CGI is not correct on either size or the look of the stone. It is just an example.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

A fact in science that 24 chromosomes are lethal, and would of caused Jesus to be deformed if he would've reached adulthood. He also would've been unable to function mentally. As well as unable to speak. Weakness in bones and muscles.

And I asked for your basis for this claim.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Your proof of any of this is?

If your answer is ... "I made it up", then be honest enough to say so.

Or, you can say that you believe the virgin birth is impossible.

However, this tells us nothing.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yes.
But, please be so kind to answer my questions first.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Steven, since you believe that the ark of the covenant was found by the Wyatt family. Could you please share with us why you believe this is true? Why did Jesus need to have His blood applied to the actual mercy seat of the ark? Do you happen to know the laboratory where Mr Wyatt had the sample of Jesus' blood tested? Why didn't this make world wide news? That the actual blood of Jesus Christ had been found and tested by a laboratory?

Maybe you could shed some new evidence to this discussion?

Well…

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Archeology Review isn't always correct and many things are debatable. Because that is archeology in a nutshell. The observation that archaeology involves debate and is not always definitively correct is a foundational principle of the field. Unlike subjects where controlled experiments lead to conclusive answers, archaeology relies on interpretation of incomplete evidence, which creates room for valid disagreements and new discoveries. The book series "Debates in Archaeology" is dedicated to ongoing theoretical and methodological arguments. Throwing a few copies of Biblical Archeological Review as if they were holy writ, will not convince the sincerely honest Christian. They certainly will not be testing it through "feelings"

Above, I simply pointed out that two of the major Ron Wyatt research areas are now largely accepted, or at least considered as prime candidates, in the Biblical Archaeology world. Sinai and Noah's Ark. This should, to anyone reasonably fair and objective, add to the overall credibility of Ron Wyatt. (As opposed to your viewpoint, simply liar, liar, pants on fire.)

To avoid that conclusion, you go through the rambling blah-blah above.

And we get again all your feigned horror over the word "feelings" !
Amazing.

========================

btw, I may stop at the Biblical Archaeology conference in Boston in late November. There are three conferences, the other two are ETS and SBL (woke alert!) and my Baptist pastor study partner, with Greek skills, is in that region as well. Maybe I can catch Nehemia Gordon and others.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Why did Jesus need to have His blood applied to the actual mercy seat of the ark?

Why questions are always a bit tricky.

Why did Jesus have to be born of the virgin in order to be sinless, the acceptable atoning sacrifice?

Anyway, before I knew anything about Ron Wyatt, or the Ark of the Covenant, my hasidic friend threw out the challenge,

"guffaw, guffaw, how could Jesus be the Messiah. Did his blood land on the mercy seat?"

It surely makes sense that the blood of bulls and goats no longer atone for sin, and we have the one time atonement of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Similarly placed on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And I asked for your basis for this claim.



If your answer is ... "I made it up", then be honest enough to say so.

Or, you can say that you believe the virgin birth is impossible.

However, this tells us nothing.

I'm not the one making things up. Just like Esaias commented. For Jesus to have just 24 chromosomes alone would make Him another species. I say, it wouldn't just make Him another species, but Jesus wouldn't of been able to grow to childhood, let alone an adult. That is scientific fact. Another thing, where do you get that if we don't accept 24 chromosome Jesus we don't believe in a Virgin birth? That's a strawman if ever I seen one.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Above, I simply pointed out that two of the major Ron Wyatt research areas are now largely accepted, or at least considered as prime candidates, in the Biblical Archaeology world. Sinai and Noah's Ark. This should, to anyone reasonably fair and objective, add to the overall credibility of Ron Wyatt. (As opposed to your viewpoint, simply liar, liar, pants on fire.)

Brother Steven, you didn't read my post? Concerning the Biblical Archeological Review? Biblical Archeological Review has never said that Ron Wyatt found Noah's Ark, where the Israelites crossed the red sea, definitely not the Ark of the Covenant. Also NO WHERE are we told that any laboratory has the actual blood of Jesus Christ. No DNA test exists for the actual blood of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

To avoid that conclusion, you go through the rambling blah-blah above.

And we get again all your feigned horror over the word "feelings" !
Amazing.

Brother Steven, what's this above? Are you looking to get into a fight with me? So we can get into a nice hair pulling contest? Look, you are supposed to have undeniable proof that Ron Wyatt wasn't a ecclesiastical grifter. No call to start trading blows. Just prove either with book, chapter, and verse. Or hard undeniable evidence that Ron Wyatt was credible.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

btw, I may stop at the Biblical Archaeology conference in Boston in late November. There are three conferences, the other two are ETS and SBL (woke alert!) and my Baptist pastor study partner, with Greek skills, is in that region as well. Maybe I can catch Nehemia Gordon and others.

What is the purpose of you telling me your vacation plans for the future? I'm asking for you to proof your case, teach what you can prove. In English.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Why questions are always a bit tricky.

Why did Jesus have to be born of the virgin in order to be sinless, the acceptable atoning sacrifice?

Anyway, before I knew anything about Ron Wyatt, or the Ark of the Covenant, my hasidic friend threw out the challenge,

"guffaw, guffaw, how could Jesus be the Messiah. Did his blood land on the mercy seat?"

It surely makes sense that the blood of bulls and goats no longer atone for sin, and we have the one time atonement of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Similarly placed on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant.

Wait a minute.

What Hasid would say that? Could you tell me what he actually said? With all due respect Brother Steven. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Could you tell us what exactly was said between the both of you? Because what you posted is unbelievable. That someone from the hasidim would make such a comment.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Why did Jesus have to be born of the virgin in order to be sinless, the acceptable atoning sacrifice?

That's not what is being discussed though.

Anyway, before I knew anything about Ron Wyatt, or the Ark of the Covenant, my hasidic friend threw out the challenge,

"guffaw, guffaw, how could Jesus be the Messiah. Did his blood land on the mercy seat?"

I have a rule, that I do not make any decisions based solely on what some antichrist says as a taunt.

It surely makes sense that the blood of bulls and goats no longer atone for sin, and we have the one time atonement of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Similarly placed on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant.

There is no evidence I have seen from Scripture that Jesus' blood was placed on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. There's also no evidence I have seen from extra-biblical sources to support such an assertion. All we have is Ron Wyatt's claim, which was not and apparently can not be verified. So there we are.

Meanwhile Epstein's best friends are all evangelically religious today making a national saint out of a podcaster's extremely suspicious death in order to beat the war drums for antichrist's next war. Oh, and apparently being anti-antichrist is now "hate speech", or so I've heard.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Rebecca Tourbiaire goes into the proto-Aramaic in the discussion here:

THE ARK AND THE BLOOD – The discovery of the Ark of the Covenant
https://arkfiles.net/the-ark-and-the...-the-covenant/

Ron knew some about ancient languages and properly additional consulted with others and researched into it after he saw them. For many years before he started looking for the Ark, he studied ancient cultures in the Middle East. When I traveled with him several times in Egypt, he even read hieroglyphs for me and he also knew a lot about proto-Aramaic. Even though he did not have his education in archeology he was very learned. I remember being amazed at everything he actually knew.

He did claim it said the same as Exodus 20 written in the old paleo-Hebrew alphabet.

Ron Wyatt did not mention the size and so the CGI is not correct on either size or the look of the stone. It is just an example.

The angels told Ron Wyatt that the the tablets of the 10 commandments will be on display AFTER the National Sunday Law is enforced?

The angels in the cave are Seventh Day Adventists?

Please forgive me but I'm not trying to be facetious. This pretty much makes Ron Wyatt's whole story a bit shaky. Wouldn't you agree?