Many negative comments have been leveled against the so-called archaeologist Ron Wyatt, and he is very deserving of most, if not all of them! What I am about to contribute will not add anything positive to his image. I will state right up front that he should have studied his Bible before he claimed he had found Christ’s blood upon the “Mercy Seat”! Today the Internet is replete with websites discussing all of his exploits, both pro and con.

According to Wyatt’s dreamed-up story, he made the astonishing claim that he’d found the socket-hole into which the cross of Christ was anchored. Ron’s story further alleged that beneath that hole he found a crack which led him to a cave, whereupon he made the unsubstantiated assertion that he had found the Ark of the Covenant. But to make his figment even more fantastic, he fallaciously claimed he had found Christ’s blood on the Mercy Seat. I would beg the reader’s patience until I have established some sound Biblical facts, at which time I will reveal Wyatt’s deceptions. So everyone will know precisely the significance of the Mercy Seat, I will quote from the Tyndale Bible Dictionary by Elwell & Comfort, pages 883-884:

“MERCY SEAT Gold slab placed on top of the ark of the covenant with cherubim attached to it on either end, termed the ‘mercy seat’ in many English versions of the Bible (cf. Ex. 25:17-22). The Hebrew word for which ‘mercy seat’ is the translation is technically best rendered as ‘propitiatory,’ a term denoting the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift. The significance of this designation is found in the ceremony performed on the Day of Atonement, held once a year, when blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat to make atonement for the sins of the people of Israel (Lev. 16). Because of the importance of this covering on the ark and the ceremony associated with it, the Holy of Holies in which the ark was housed in the temple is termed the ‘room for the mercy seat’ in 1 Chronicles 28:11 (RSV). The term ‘mercy seat’ came into English use from Luther’s German rendering of the Hebrew term, which is difficult to translate appropriately from the Hebrew (cf. NIV ‘atonement cover’ and NLT ‘Ark’s cover’).

“The mercy seat measured two and a half cubits (45 inches, or 114.3 centimeters) by one and a half cubits (27 inches, 68.6 centimeters). The cherubim on each end were also made of gold and faced each other with their wings spread upward over the ark. It was in this space above the ark that the Lord’s presence with his people was localized in a special sense, and from which the Lord made his commandments known to Moses (Ex. 25:22; cf. also Lev. 16:2). Because of the close association of the Lord’s presence with the space above the ark, he is said to be enthroned between the cherubim (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2). The ark itself contained the tables of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments that summarized the covenantal obligations of the Israelites to their divine King. When the children of Israel fell short of their covenant obligations by sinning against God and breaking his commands, the blood of the sacrifice sprinkled on the mercy seat made atonement for their sin and reconciled them with God.

“The propitiatory or mercy seat points forward to Jesus, who is termed by Paul (Rom. 3:25) the ‘means of propitiation’ through faith in his blood for all who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Here in Romans 3:25 the Greek term translated ‘propitiation’ is the same Greek word consistently used in the Septuagint and in Hebrews 9:5 to translate the Hebrew word for mercy seat in the OT.”

[My comment: The “tables of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments” are now obsolete, as we, upon Christ’s sacrifice of Himself, have them written in our hearts!]

This quote from the Tyndale Bible Dictionary will help us to better evaluate Wyatt’s spurious claims. In addition to the subject of the “Mercy Seat” we must also be familiar with the Day of Atonement, as the two are without exception inseparable! Again from the Tyndale Bible Dictionary, pages 130-131:

“ATONEMENT, Day of Yom Kippur, the most important day in the religious calendar of Israel, falling on the 10th day of Tishri (the Hebrew month corresponding to mid-September through mid-October). On that day the high priest entered the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle (or temple) to atone for the sins of all Israel. The basic idea of atonement is a ‘covering’ of sin; the purpose is to accomplish reconciliation between man and God. In the NT the Day of Atonement was referred to as the ‘fast’ (Acts 27:9). To the rabbis, it was the ‘Day’ or the ‘Great Day.’

“Although many additional rites were added over the centuries, the basic description of the original Day of Atonement is in Leviticus 16. Complex and detailed ceremonies all focused on the central objective of complete atonement by sacrifice. First, the high priest removed his official garments, made for beauty and glory, and clothed himself in white linen as a symbol of repentance as he went about the duties of the day. Next, he offered a bull calf as a sin offering for the priests and himself. That done, he entered the Holy of Holies with a censer of live coals from the altar of incense, filling the area with incense. He sprinkled the bullock’s blood on the mercy seat and on the floor before the ark of the covenant. Then he cast lots over two live goats brought by the people. He killed one of the goats as a sin offering for the nation, taking the blood inside the veil and sprinkling it as before, thus atoning even for the Holy Place. He confessed the sins of the nation over the live goat as he placed his hands on its head. Finally he sent the live goat, called the scapegoat (i.e., the escape goat), into the wilderness. Symbolically it carried away the sins of the people. Then the high priest clothed himself in his usual apparel and offered a burnt offering for himself and one for the people with the fat of the sin offering. Outside the camp the flesh of the bull calf and goat was burned.

“Other OT references to the Day of Atonement include Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 23:26-32, giving the date in a list of all the annual feasts; Leviticus 25:9-16, stating that each jubilee year began on the Day of Atonement; and Numbers 29:7-11.

“The Day of Atonement became so central to Judaism [sic, the Judahites] that it survived the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and the end of the sacrificial system. It is the highest holy day of Judaism [sic Canaanite-jewishism] today. Although nowhere in the books of Moses is there an explanation of ‘afflicting the soul’ required on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:27-32, KJV), the Jews [sic Canaanite-jews] have continuously interpreted it as referring to fasting (cf. Ps 35:13; Is 58:3-5, 10). In biblical times, celebration of the Day of Atonement showed that Israel believed the cleansing of their sins was accomplished by the rites commanded by God. The forgiveness and grace of God were granted them and were the basis for their continued fellowship with God as his covenant people. Because it was designated as a sabbath of solemn rest (Lev. 16:31; 23:32), all work was forbidden on that day as on the weekly observance of the Sabbath.

“As with all the prescribed sacrifices throughout the year, the question arises as to the need for a special time for atonement. It is clear that the ritual was meant to avert God’s wrath for sins already committed as well as to guarantee the continued presence of God. The sacrifice of the first goat and the sending away of the scapegoat were intended to cleanse the nation, the priesthood, and the sanctuary from sin. The intent of the whole sacrificial system reached its highest expression on that day, called by some the ‘Good Friday of the OT.’ The daily, weekly, and monthly sacrifices left something undone, so that the high priest could not enter the holiest place throughout the year. On that one day, however, he was permitted to enter with sacrificial blood as he solemnly represented the nation before the bloodstained mercy seat.

“THE DAY OF ATONEMENT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT In the NT the crucifixion account, many references in Paul’s epistles, and the whole book of Hebrews are inseparably connected to the Day of Atonement. The ritual of the day is explained as a ‘type’ of the atonement made by Jesus Christ (Heb. 9-10). Christ, the High Priest, shed his blood on Calvary and then, having atoned for the world’s sins, appeared in heaven before the Father (Heb. 9:11-12). ...

“The underlying reason for the day was that other offerings for sin could not provide for unknown (‘secret’) sins. Because of such sins the sanctuary, the land, and the nation remained ritually unclean. The Day of Atonement was instituted by God for the complete atonement of all sin (Lev. 16:33). In the person of the high priest the nation was most fully represented by the access of their mediator into the very presence of God.”

Now let’s examine Ron Wyatt’s story again! First of all, Ron claims to have found the hole into which the cross of Christ was planted. Just how did he verify that the hole he found was the correct hole? After all, no one knows for sure exactly where the crucifixion took place, other than the “place of a skull”, Mat. 27:33. Are we to believe this “hole” discovered by Ron wouldn’t have filled up with dirt over the past 2000 years and wouldn’t today be planted with grass? As for the location where Christ was crucified, the only clue the Bible gives us is Hebrews 13:12, where we are told, He “... suffered without the gate ...” But which gate, and what was its location? We are told at Micah 3:12 that:

“Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.”

So utterly destroyed was the Temple that the Roman emperor, Titus taking Jerusalem about forty years after this, commanded his soldiers to spare the Temple when they entered the city, but they in their rage burnt of it what was of a combustible nature; and Turnus Rufus, left general of his army when away, drew a plough over it, as Yahweh had said, Jeremiah 26:18; Micah 3:12, “Zion shall be ploughed like a field.” And when after this Alippius, by the command of Julian the apostate, attempted the rebuilding of it with the help of the “Jews”, it is reported by diverse sources that balls or globes of fire rose up from the foundations, destroyed many of the workmen, and made the place inaccessible for any further such attempts. Titus tried unsuccessfully to save the Temple, but his soldiers put it to the torch, thus fulfilling Yahshua’s prophecy. When the fire melted the gold trim, the molten metal ran down between the stones. To get it, the soldiers had removed the stones one by one, just as our Messiah predicted. The judgment was executed in A.D. 70 when the Romans under Titus sacked Jerusalem. Under such conditions, how could Ron Wyatt find anything on the ground that existed during the time of Christ? And we’re supposed to believe he was able to find the exact hole into which Christ’s cross was placed? If indeed Ron found a hole where a cross had been planted, how does he know it wasn’t one of the holes where the crosses of the two “malefactors” were placed when they were crucified with Christ? In such a case, Ron would have to had found three holes in order to determine which was the middle one! Jonathan Gray now claims that Ron found four holes, so which of the four is the middle one?

I really should address the matter of the crack at the bottom of the hole that Wyatt supposedly found, and all of the difficulties of the blood of Christ dripping down through it onto the Mercy Seat, but I will skip that part of the story for the time being and bring to the fore some evidence of even greater consequence.

Why is the subject of the Ark of the Covenant mentioned so many times in the Old Testament, and then suddenly there is no more citing of it from Jer. 3:16 until Rev. 11:19? Maybe the following data will help clear up the matter:

Jer. 3:16: “And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith Yahweh, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of Yahweh: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.”

Rev. 11:19: “And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.”

A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, vol. 4, page 11, states in part on Jer. 3:16: “The ark, containing the two tables of the law, disappeared at the Babylonian captivity, and was not restored to the second temple ...”

Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations from the Libronix Digital Library states in part on Jer. 3:16: “Even though the vessels of the first temple were taken to Babylon (cf. Jer. 28:3), perhaps the ark of the covenant is hidden out on Mount Nebo where the book of 2 Maccabees (2:1-7) says that the prophet Jeremiah hid it.” 2 Maccabees 2:4-7 reads:

“4 It was also contained in the same writing, that the prophet, being warned of God, commanded the tabernacle and the ark to go with him, as he went forth into the mountain, where Moses climbed up, and saw the heritage of God.

“5 And when Jeremy came thither, he found an hollow cave, wherein he laid the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of incense, and so stopped the door.

“6 And some of those that followed him came to mark the way, but they could not find it.

“7 Which when Jeremy perceived, he blamed them, saying, As for that place, it shall be unknown until the time that God gather his people again together, and receive them unto mercy.”

Incidentally, the 2nd book of Maccabees is in the original 1611 edition of the King James Version of the Bible!

The IVP Bible Background Commentary, by C.S. Keener on Rev. 2:17 states: “The original ark of the covenant was permanently lost in 586 B.C. (cf. Jer 3:16), and the manna inside it had vanished before then. But a wide spectrum of Jewish [sic Israelite] tradition declared that Jeremiah (e.g., 2 Maccabees, 4 Baruch) or an angel (2 Baruch) had hidden them and that they would be restored at the end time ...”.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary on Jer. 3:16, by Walvoord & Zuck, on page 1134 states in part: “The ark of the covenant, which was lost after Babylon destroyed Judah in 586 B.C., would not be missed, and another ark would not be made. ...”. Conclusion: Christ was not crucified at Mount Nebo! But there is more.

Then in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 1, under the topic “Ark Of The Covenant” under the subtitle “Later references”, it mentioned the “second Temple had no Ark”, and gave a reference to Josephus’ Wars 5.5. Of the eight paragraphs under the heading, “A Description Of The Temple”, not a single mention of the Ark Of The Covenant was made. The closest it came to giving an allusion to the Ark Of The Covenant can be found in paragraph 4 where it states:

“As to the holy house itself, which was placed in the midst [of the inmost court], that most sacred part of the temple, it was ascended to by twelve steps; and in front its height and its breadth were equal, and each a hundred cubits, though it was behind forty cubits narrower; for on its front it had what may be styled shoulders on each side, that passed twenty cubits farther. Its first gate was seventy cubits high, and twenty-five cubits broad; but this gate had no doors; for it represented the universal visibility of heaven, and that it cannot be excluded from any place. Its front was covered with gold all over ...”. Surely, had the Ark of the Covenant been part of the Temple complex, Josephus would have informed us of its presence there!

If one is familiar with Ron Wyatt’s bogus claims in archaeology, one can quickly recognize that his allegations don’t match the true facts! In order for one to avoid his evil hypnotic spell, one must realize he is a phenomenal conartist extraordinaire! With valid data placed before one’s eyes, one can hastily recognize his highly doubtful story of finding the hole in which the cross of Christ was set upright, especially when he identified Jerusalem rather than Mount Nebo as the place where the Ark of the Covenant was hidden by Jeremiah!

We in Israel Identity are very familiar with Jacob’s pillow stone which Jeremiah took to Ireland with Tea Tephi, which might bring up the question of why he didn’t take the Ark of the Covenant. I would suggest the stone was needed in Ireland to continue the coronation of the king-line of David in Ireland, Scotland and England, whereas the Ark of the Covenant wouldn’t be needed until the Second Advent of Christ!

Ron Wyatt may have found a hole of some sort and a crack of some kind at the bottom of the hole, and he may have even found a cave of some description, but according to 2 Maccabees 2:1-7, he didn’t find the Ark of the Covenant, nor any of Christ’s blood on the Mercy Seat (the lid of the Ark of the Covenant)! And since he didn’t find any of Christ’s blood, he couldn’t have had it tested as he claimed! The following is Ron Wyatt’s story from the Internet at:

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/aoc-2.htm

“Mr. Wyatt removed a sample of Christ’s blood from the Mercy Seat of the Ark in the cave and paid a lab in Israel to do an analysis of the blood. They put the dark dried-out substance in saline solution for 72 hours. Mr. Wyatt asked them to do a chromosome test, but they informed him that he was wasting his money since you can’t do a chromosome test on dead white blood cells. They proceeded with the analysis and said, ‘It’s your money.’ As they began viewing the cells under the electron microscope, they saw cells dividing before their eyes! They could tell it was human blood, but ‘This blood is alive!’ They couldn’t believe what they were seeing! They continued with their tests and found the blood to be unique from any other human blood! Each cell contained only 24 chromosomes compared to the normal count of 46 that you and I have. Christ received 23 chromosomes from Mary, and one ‘y’ chromosome from His heavenly Father to designate a male child. Others in the lab were asked to come see for themselves. With tears in their eyes they asked whose blood this was, and Mr. Wyatt replied, ‘It is the blood of your Messiah.’ Then they asked who the Messiah was. They began wailing and shouting. No other male human being has ever had this same chromosome count! Christ’s blood is alive and unique to prove His divinity to the world before He returns to this earth. When these tests are repeated for all the world to see, everyone will learn that Jesus was more than a preacher, He was and is the Son of God!”

One can detect instantly that this was an invented story on the part of Wyatt, for no Kenite-Edomite-jew (who are the seed of the serpent) would have showed any remorse over Christ’s death!

It has been established that a person with Down’s syndrome has 47 chromosomes instead of the normal 46. What would be the implications if Mary, the mother of Christ, contributed the normal 23 chromosomes and the Holy Spirit only one as Ron Wyatt conjectures? Under such a situation, 22 of Mary’s egg chromosomes would be UN-CONNECTED from 22 of the male’s matching chromosomes? That would be Down’s syndrome multiplied 22 times! What kind of misfit would that have made our Redeemer? I don’t say this very often, but Ron Wyatt is a FOOL with a capital “F”, and a FRAUD with a capital “F”!

The followers of Ron Wyatt contend that once the Ark of the Covenant is revealed, it will cause a great revival, but Christ told Thomas: “... blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

Of all the scam-artists who have ever existed on planet Earth, Ron Wyatt takes first prize over them all! His story of finding the Ark of the Covenant in a cave in or near Jerusalem, along with Christ’s blood on the Mercy Seat, surely places all other dreamed-up scams before his, since the foundation of the world, in an inferior second place! And then he gave his bogus report that, “Each cell contained only 24 chromosomes compared to the normal count of 46 that you and I have”. When Wyatt made the bogus claim that “Christ received 23 chromosomes from Mary, and one ‘y’ chromosome from His heavenly Father to designate a male child”, he outdid his first lie!

As I demonstrated in part #1 of this series, the Mercy Seat is the lid of the Ark of the Covenant and is affiliated with the day of Atonement, not the day of Passover. The important days for assembly in Israel were Passover, Pentecost, Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles. Every one of these days would be fulfilled in the administration of the ministry of Christ. As I demonstrated in my brochure The Day The Word Became Flesh, Christ was born on the Day of Trumpets. On the preparation day of Passover, Christ (the Lamb) was crucified in accordance with the first Passover in Egypt when the lambs were slain and the blood applied to the door posts of each Israelite home. Whereas, the Day of Atonement was celebrated on the 10th day of the seventh month when two goats were selected; one to be killed for a sacrifice, and the other to be let go free with the sins of Israel laid upon it, as being a scapegoat. The last major assembly was the gathering for Tabernacles. Ron Wyatt’s blunder is that he is attempting to have Christ crucified on the Day of Atonement rather than at Passover!

We can settle the matter with five simple questions: (1 Was Christ crucified during the Feast of Tabernacles? Answer, No! (2 Was Christ crucified on the Day of Atonement? Answer, No! (3 Was Christ crucified on the Day of Trumpets? Answer, No! (4 Was Christ crucified on the Day of Pentecost? Answer, No! (5 Was Christ crucified on the preparation Day of Passover? Answer, Yes! So, why try to crowd the Mercy Seat into the Feast of Passover where it doesn’t belong? Also, why follow the Canaanite Edomite-jews who keep the Day of Atonement for the forgiveness of their sins? But the Canaanite-jews take it one step further by asking forgiveness of their sins a year in advance!

What it all boils down to is that each individual feast day should be kept to itself; not placed in a blender and turned on high and rendered into some kind of unrecognizable amalgamation, void of any value! This is exactly what Ron Wyatt tried to do by bringing the Day of Atonement under the Feast of Passover. These are two different celebrations with two different purposes! Some will argue that it was absolutely necessary for Christ’s blood to be placed on the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant. If that is true, why wasn’t all of the blood of the lambs slain at the original Passover in Egypt placed on the Mercy Seat? All those following Ron Wyatt’s errant theology are idiots (meaning feebleminded foolish persons)! If we are going to bring the Mercy Seat into the celebration of Passover, we might as well (like the Kenite-Edomite-jews) confess all of our sins a year in advance so we can break every law of Yahweh in the interim! How many other “traditions of the elders” should we adopt? Or, how much more of “the leaven of the Pharisees” should we accept?

According to Ron Wyatt, he claimed to have taken samples of the blood of Christ that he had removed from the Mercy Seat to an Israeli blood lab. They replied to him, according to Wyatt, that this blood had only 24 chromosomes, and that it was alive! He also claimed that the folks at the lab were ready to hear about Jesus as a result of this pretended DNA blood test. When in the last 2000 years have the Canaanite-Edomite-jews been “ready to hear about Jesus”? Yahshua made it very clear at John 10:25:27: “²⁵ Yahshua answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. ²⁶ But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. ²⁷ My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me ...” When Christ spoke of “sheep” he was speaking of “Israelite sheep”, and at this passage He addressed proselyted Kenite-Edomite-Canaanites, launching what is now called “judaism”. If they heard not Yahweh in the flesh as Yahshua, how would they believe in Christ as a result of Ron Wyatt’s fabricated blood on the Mercy Seat story? So all Ron Wyatt is giving us is some more Kenite-Edomite-“jews for Jesus” propaganda!

Supposedly all of this happened several years ago. Of course, Wyatt didn’t leave any substantiating evidence available to us. The men at the lab remain anonymous. Wyatt’s “evidences” disappeared as quickly as he discovered them. The blood of Christ has vaporized and we have only his tales on his videos and his recorded presentations, some of which have been posted on You-Tube.

From the www.arkdiscovery website we learn that Ron Wyatt died on August 4, 1999. Upon his death Mrs. Mary Nell Wyatt found a new husband. [On] the last trip to Israel by her and her new husband, they were supposed to reopen the cave containing the Ark of the Covenant which was supposedly covered with the very blood of Jesus Christ. Since that time Mary Nell has continued the stalling tactics her first husband, Ron, was famous for by statements such as: “As of this date, conclusive evidence has not been released.” ... “The complete video documentation on this subject is not available at this time and will not be forthcoming until the time at which the Ark is made public.” ... “Over the years Ron mentioned tests that were done on blood samples taken from the Ark. At this time, these have not been released.” ... “Again, reserve your decision on this subject until the point in time when you can see positive evidence for yourself.” ... “In Feb. 1988, when Ron first publicly told about his discovery, he concluded his talk with the request that people ‘just watch, and wait’.” [Mary Nell continues to pile it higher and higher!]

I would suggest that Mary Nell show us the results of the first alleged DNA blood test by the Israelis which Ron was so cocksure of! Had Ron ever had such a report, we can be sure he would have shown it to us over and over again! He would have mounted it in a gold frame! Since Ron has claimed he has already received the results of such a test, why is Mary Nell talking about doing the test over again? Why can’t Mary Nell keep her story straight!

On Mary Nell’s website she stated: “Over the years Ron mentioned test[s] that were done on blood samples taken from the Ark. At this time, these have not been released. When the appropriate time comes, our plan is to have independent geneticists take their own specimens and perform their own test[s], all of which will be well documented.” It would appear to any earnest Christian that “the appropriate time” is well past for a release of the first alleged blood samples taken by Ron! Mary Nell also stated: “In Feb. 1988, when Ron first publicly told about his discovery, he concluded his talk with the request that people ‘just watch and wait’.” Well, we have been waiting now for 22 years, so where is all the corroborating evidence that Wyatt even found the Mercy Seat, let alone any blood of Christ on it! But Mary Nell assures us: “The time is getting closer when you will no longer have to simply wonder, or believe anyone just because you think they may be an honest person.” Sorry Mary Nell, seeing is believing! Otherwise, you’re just another pretzel-twister!

Mary Nell went on to declare: “Events have already begun to occur which have led us to believe that we are quite near the time when the Ark of the Covenant will be made known to the world. How near we are, I do not know, but we have reason to believe we are quite near. Therefore, we have decided that now is the proper time to present the details of Ron’s excavation which resulted in his discovery of the Ark.”

Let’s examine such a scenario: If the Ark of the Covenant were suddenly to appear in or near Jerusalem, the Canaanite-jews would posthaste declare: “You see, we have the Ark of the Covenant, therefore we really are ‘God’s chosen people’.” That brings up the incredible question: Why would the Almighty allow a sacred object like the Ark of the Covenant to be left in an area cursed by Yahweh, never to rise again? This is found at Jeremiah 19:1-11, which reads: “¹ Thus saith Yahweh, Go and get a potter’s earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests; ² And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee, ³ And say, Hear ye the word of Yahweh, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith Yahweh of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. ⁴ Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; ⁵ They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: ⁶ Therefore, behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. ⁷ And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. ⁸ And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. ⁹ And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them. ¹⁰ Then shalt thou break the bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee, ¹¹ And shalt say unto them, Thus saith Yahweh of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury.”

What is there about the words “cannot be made whole again” that we don’t seem to understand? Thus, Jerusalem became like Humpty-Dumpty; having a great fall, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Old Jerusalem back together again! Not only this, but Yahshua Himself put His own personal curse on Jerusalem and the nation of Judaea at Luke 13:6-9: “⁶ He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. ⁷ Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? ⁸ And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: ⁹ And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.” This passage corresponds with the three years of Christ’s ministry in Judaea!

Further, at Matt. 21:19: “And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.” This was emblematic of Judaea becoming a worthless nation, along with the city of Jerusalem, so Christ placed His curse on them. So at Jer. 19:1-11; Luke 13:6-9 & Matt. 21:19 we find a perpetual curse placed on Judaea and Jerusalem! Question: Why would our Almighty leave the Ark of the Covenant in a CURSED place? Secondly, Why would our Almighty leave the Ark of the Covenant with the CURSED Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite-jews who possess that geographic area presently? It used to be called the “Holy Land”, but today it is an “unholy land”! Had the Ark of the Covenant been left by Jeremiah in or near old Jerusalem, as Ron & Mary Nell Wyatt claim, it would now have the CURSE of Yahweh upon it! Surely, the idea that the Ark of the Covenant might be found in the modern state of Israeli would support the evil agenda of political-zionism (spelled in lower case letters).

If the story is true at 1 Sam. 5:1-7, and the Ark of the Covenant is to be found in or near Jerusalem, as Ron Wyatt claims, then all the Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite-jews presently living in that area would be suffering from hemorrhoids (emerods) as they did in Samuel’s day. This passage reads:

“¹ And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod. ² When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. ³ And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of Yahweh. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again. ⁴ And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of Yahweh; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him. ⁵ Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon’s house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day. ⁶ But the hand of Yahweh was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods [cancerous-hemorrhoids], even Ashdod and the coasts thereof. ⁷ And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god.”

As anyone can see from this passage, when Yahweh’s Ark of the Covenant fell into an enemy’s hand, they suffered an epidemic of hemorrhoids. Therefore, if the Ark of the Covenant can be found in or near Jerusalem today, as Ron and Mary Nell claim, then the present-day Canaanite-Edomite-jews should experience the same physical syndrome! If this is true, then the Ark of the Covenant can not be in Judaea today, nor could it have been there in Christ’s day! I don’t know about you, but I haven’t heard of any epidemics of hemorrhoids among the impostor-jews committing identity theft from the true tribe of Judah in Palestine today. It is amazing, but by Mary Nell’s own words, she admits that she and her deceased husband, Ron, were working in collusion with the Israelis who we, in Israel Identity, recognize as Kenites and Edomites (actually descendants of Cain)!:

“The time came when Ron provided something to the authorities from the excavation which did convince them that he had at the least discovered some items from the first temple. [One item is the ivory pomegranate found in the Israeli museum today. Recognized as the only item from Solomon’s temple ever to be found] Then a plan was devised by authorities to ‘test’ the water so to speak- they wanted to carefully determine the public reaction should the announcement be made that the Ark of the Covenant had been discovered. The officials that Ron dealt with were serious government servants, concerned with the welfare of the people. They realized that such an announcement would most likely set off a bloody clash between the Jews who would want to rebuild the temple and the Arabs who control the temple mount. While they did not necessarily have the religious belief that any temple would ever be rebuilt, they were well acquainted with the passion and fanaticism of those who did. Their efforts to test public reaction to the rebuilding of a new temple resulted in much bloodshed, and many deaths. [One stone for the new temple was set in place, causing a riot and 19 deaths.] Until this day, it is an extremely critical issue and the Israelis will handle the situation the way they handle everything else – by a no-nonsense approach with the best interests of the peoples’ safety foremost. What that approach will be, we don’t know and perhaps even they won’t know until the time arrives.”

[Again, pile it higher and higher.] From this testimony found on Mary Nell’s website, it is apparent that she is either making up a story, or on the other hand, in the hire of the usurping Israelis! But you ain’t heard nothin’ yet! Wait until you hear how Mary Nell describes how Ron discovered where to dig for the Ark of the Covenant!:

“One day, after the swelling in Ron’s legs and feet went down a bit, he decided to go sightseeing in the immediate area around his hotel near the Damascus Gate. Walking along an ancient stone quarry, known to some as ‘the Calvary Escarpment,’ he began conversing with a local authority about Roman antiquities. At one point, they stopped walking, and Ron’s left hand pointed to a site being used as a trash dump and he stated, ‘That’s Jeremiah’s Grotto and the Ark of the Covenant is in there.’ Even though these words had come from his own mouth and his own hand had pointed, he had not consciously done or said these things. In fact, it was the first time he had ever thought about excavating for the Ark. The man with him, quite out of character, also reacted strangely. He said, ‘That’s wonderful! We want you to excavate, and we’ll furnish your permits, put you up in a place to stay and even furnish your meals!’ But Ron didn’t know what to think – he knew it was a ‘supernatural’ experience, but was it of God, or was it of ‘someone else’?”

All of this spontaneous finger pointing and uncontrolled speaking on the part of Ron Wyatt sounds like a pentecostal tongue-wagger talking about one of his out-of-body experiences, although I know he is a disciple of Ellen G. White. To make a long story short, Ron and his party decided to return home to America where he decided to compare his theory with the Bible. Upon reading 2 Chr. 26:14, he changed his mind concerning where he thought the Ark was located. Mary Nell addressed this thusly at her website:

“Uzziah, spoken of in this verse, was king over 100 years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and we here learn that they had ‘engines’ on the ‘towers’ and ‘bulwarks’ which shot ‘arrows’ and ‘great stones’. Catapults were capable of reaching over 1,000 feet, and therefore Ron reasoned that the siege wall would have been positioned out of the range of these massive devices, and therefore, further from the city wall than the site he had pointed to ...”

Now we know, from the very words of Mary Nell herself, that the “supernatural experience” that Ron Wyatt experienced was self induced! Had Ron Wyatt’s so-called “supernatural experience” been genuine, he wouldn’t have had to change his mind; not even one inch! What other evidence do we need to understand that Ron Wyatt was a complete fraud!

All of this brings to mind the story of Ananias and Sapphira found at Acts 5:1-10. As Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying about things Holy, we can only imagine what might be the sentence upon Ron Wyatt and his wife Mary Nell at the great White Throne Judgment of Christ. There are certain subjects in our private lives which we do not have to reveal to others, but concerning things Holy, it is altogether a different matter! Only truth (not lies) will set us free!

If you haven’t as yet read part #’s 1 and 2 on this subject, you need to get copies, as this is becoming quite a detective story. A supposed archaeologist by the name of Ron Wyatt claims to have found the Ark of the Covenant with Christ’s blood upon the Mercy Seat of it. But like all less-than-honest manipulators, he fails miserably to keep his story straight. This is especially true when one is attempting to run a pretzel factory with Yahweh’s Word! Wyatt’s contrived story is that while he was going about doing all of this, four angels came to his aid.

Much of this was discussed on an Internet program Talkshoe hosted by Eli James, who has turned out to be quite an avid proponent of Wyatt’s story. On the May 31st, 2009 program, Eli interviewed a man by the name of Jonathan Gray, who claims he joined Wyatt in his endeavor. One of the listeners by the name of Skip Baker made the following comment:

“I just wanted to mention, in the other video tape, if I recall correctly, Ron claimed he videotaped the Ark and had got good pictures of it finally. He goes back to his hotel and got to thinking ‘Well what should I do with this?’ Then he said, of all things, he would go back and ask the four angels that he had met in the cave. So he goes back and asks them, ‘What should I do with this video tape?’ They said, ‘We’ll take it, because God wants it to come out when the mark of the beast happens.’ And he said he gave it to them, and they took it with them, although they didn’t demand it when he came and asked ‘what shall I do with this?’ They said, ‘We’ll take it.’ That was a little tidbit I picked up by watching the movie part.” I have absolutely no question that Baker told the truth about Wyatt here, as I have other witnesses to Wyatt’s absurd “angel story”.

But if these four supposed angels had been from the Almighty Yahweh, they would never have said, “We’ll take it (the videotape), because God wants it to come out when the mark of the beast happens.” This is not something in the future, but the past! For my documentation, I will go to the book Daniel And The Revelation by Uriah Smith, pages 701-703 ©1897. Uriah was better than the average student on prophecy, but blind to Identity, and was a Seventh Day Adventist:

“The most plausible name we have ever seen suggested as containing the number of the beast, is the title which the pope applies to himself, and allows others to apply to him. That title is this: Vicarius Filii Dei, ‘Vicegerent of the Son of God.’ Taking the letters out of this title which the Latins used as numerals, and giving them their numerical value, we have just 666. Thus we have V, = 5; I, = 1; C, = 100 (a and r not used as numerals); I, = 1; U (formerly the same as V), = 5 (s and f not used as numerals); I, = 1; L, = 50; I, = 1; I, = 1; D, = 500 (e not used as a numeral); I, = 1. Adding these numbers together, we have just 666.

“This title has been placed upon the pope’s crown. While the Vatican authorities have of late years [1897] shown a disposition not to make this title conspicuous, there is good evidence that it was formerly so used, and that at least one of the papal crowns bears this inscription. The following testimony on this point is given by the late Elder D.E. Scoles, of Washburn, Mo:

“‘I have met two men who declare that they have seen this specific crown; and their testimony is so perfectly in agreement that I am convinced that what they say is true. The first man was M. De Latti, a Sabbath-keeper who had previously been a Catholic priest, and had spent_. four years in Rome. He visited me when I was pastor in St. Paul, Minn., several years ago. I showed him my tract, ‘The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast.’ He at once told me that the inscription was not correctly placed in my illustration. He stated that he had often seen it in the museum at the Vatican, and gave a detailed and accurate description of the whole crown. When my tract was published, I was ignorant of the arrangement of the words of the Latin inscription, hence, in the illustration of the crown, placed them in one line. Brother De Latti at once pointed out the mistake, and said the first word of the sentence was on the first [top] crown of the triple arrangement, the second word on the second [middle] part of the crown, while the word Dei was on the lower [bottom] division of the triple crown. He also explained that the first two words were in dark-colored jewels, while the Dei was composed of diamonds entirely.

“‘During a tent-meeting which I held in Webb City, Mo., I presented the subject, ‘The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast.’ I used charts to illustrate it, one being a reproduction of the crown as Brother De Latti had described it. A Presbyterian minister was present, Rev. B. Hoffman, and when I described the crown, he spoke out publicly and made a statement to the congregation, saying that while in Rome studying for the priesthood, he had seen this very crown, and noted its inscription, and that the word Dei was composed of one hundred diamonds. I met him and learned his name, and visited him at his home, and was convinced from his description that this was the identical crown that Brother De Latti had seen, but which has been denied by many. I then asked him for a written statement, and he gave me the following:–

“‘To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that I was born in Bavaria in 1828, was educated in Munich, and was reared a Roman Catholic. In 1844 and 1845 I was a student for the priesthood in the Jesuit College in Rome. During the Easter service of 1845, Pope Gregory XVI wore a triple crown upon which was the inscription, in jewels, Vicarius Filii Dei. We were told that there were one hundred diamonds in the word Dei; the other words were of some other kind of precious stones of a darker color. There was one word upon each crown, and not all on the same line. I was present at the service, and saw the crown distinctly, and noted it carefully.

“‘In 1850 I was converted to God and to Protestantism. Two years later I entered the Evangelical Church ministry, but later in life I united with the Presbyterian Church; of which I am now a retired pastor, having been in the ministry for fifty years.

“‘I have made the above statement at the request of Elder D.E. Scoles, as he states that some deny that the pope ever wore this tiara. But I know that he did for I saw it upon his head.

“‘Sincerely yours in Christian service,

(Signed) “‘B. Hoffman

Webb City, Mo., Oct. 29, 1906’.”

“The following extract is from a work entitled The Reformation, bearing the date of 1832:–

“‘Mrs. A.,’ said Miss Emmons, ‘I saw a very curious fact the other day; I have dwelt upon it much, and will mention it. A person, lately, was witnessing a ceremony of the Romish Church. As the pope passed him in procession, splendidly dressed in his pontifical robes, the gentleman’s eye rested on these full, blazing letters in front of his miter: ‘VICARIUS FILII DEI,’ the Vicar of the Son of God. His thoughts, with the rapidity of lightning, reverted to Rev. 13:18. “Will you turn to it?’ said Mrs. A. ... Alice opened the New Testament and read: ‘Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.’ She paused, and Miss Emmons said, ‘He took out his pencil, and marking the numerical letters of the inscription on his tablet, it stood, 666.’

“Here we have indeed the number of a man, even the ‘man of sin;’ and it is a little singular, perhaps providential, that he should select a title which shows the blasphemous character of the beast, and then cause it to be inscribed upon his miter, as if to brand himself with the number 666. The foregoing extract doubtless refers to a particular pope on a particular occasion. Other popes might not wear the title emblazoned on the miter, as there stated. But this does not affect the application at all; for ^.the popes all assume to be the ‘Vicar of Christ’ (see Standard Dictionary under ‘vicar’), and the Latin words given above are the words which express that title, in the form ‘vicar of the Son of God;’ and their numerical value is 666.”

I will repeat here that Ron Wyatt made a serious blunder in his story, as no self-respecting angel would have put the “mark of the beast” in the future! This shows that Wyatt followed the teachings of Cyrus I. Scofield, who was a member of the Lotus Club (a branch of the Illuminati), and was bought and paid for by such Canaanite-jews as Samuel Gompers, Fiorello LaGuardia, Abraham Straus, Bernard Baruch, Jacob Schiff and Samuel Untermeyer, each among the descendants of the Cain-satanic-seedline of Gen. 3:15!

For a second witness we find at the website: http://www.wyattnewsletters.com/ArkCov/search.htm

“Yet in a description written 5/16/2000 regarding the same saga and time period on a rival ‘Wyatt Discoveries’ site, Anchorstone.com, Wyatt associate Bill Fry goes into elaborate detail about Wyatt’s claims that he saw four angels in the chamber. He said that they ‘cleaned up’ the chamber and set out the Temple artifacts, that they removed the cover of the Ark exposing the Ten Commandment stones, that he was told by one of them to take out those stones, and that he discussed with that same angel a number of times how he should deal with the discovery.” This seems strange, as Daniel only had one angel come to him! Is Ron Wyatt four times more important than the prophet Daniel? Or does he just think he is?

From http://www.arkdiscovery.com/aocpt1.htm

Ark of the Covenant Discovery, part 1 ... The Ark of the Covenant ... Written by Mary Nell Wyatt:

“The Ark of the Covenant and the other objects from the sanctuary are still where Ron found them, completely hidden and very well guarded by four angels. Will everything be shown publicly? We don’t know. I know that Ron’s greatest desire was to excavate the entire area, exposing the site of the crucifixion down to the chamber, but whether that will ever happen, we just don’t know. I have learned that no matter how I believe events will occur, they always happen differently than I imagined. Hopefully the Ark will be brought out. We don’t know if it ever will – it is deep in the earth and getting it and the other objects out at this time seems almost impossible without some Divine assistance. Ron was of the belief that the things you have read about here will be made public soon due to other events which we have cause to believe are about to occur (which we won’t mention now). However, if it doesn’t happen that soon, we certainly won’t give up – nor are we saying that it will be that soon – only that we believe there is a strong likelihood. We do ask that you pray for this discovery of the ark because at this moment there are certain people, led by Satan, who are attempting to bury it even deeper in the earth than it already is. After all, what could Satan fear more than the evidence which lies buried there?”

Eli James states the following in his interview with Jonathan Gray: “Here let me just quote Hosea 6:2. It says, “After two days I will revive my people Israel, in the third day they will be revived.” So actually 1982 would have been short of two millennia, because I think it’s 2nd Peter that says a thousand years for man is one day for Yahweh. Okay. So Jesus was born (in my opinion anyway), September 29th, 1 B.C. Okay. And that would make Him 33½ years old when he was crucified on April 3rd, 33 A.D. Okay. And then the prophecy in Hosea says, “on the third day, I will revive my people.” So 1982 would have been too soon. So two millennia later we find out about it. ... So in order to fulfill the prophecy the Israelis are playing into the hands of Yahweh by covering this [Ron Wyatt story] up all of this time. Because here we are in the third day, and Jesus said that those days shall be shortened, lest no flesh be saved. Okay. So we want Jesus to come back soon rather than later in this third day. We are definitely in the third day. There’s no doubt about it.”

Eli James, in an earlier remark on this Talkshoe program, had quoted Ken Gregg’s expression “Johnny one-liner”. Well, Eli pulled off one of his own one-liners by quoting only Hosea 6:2 without including verse one, and misquoting it at that. By doing this, Eli changed the word “torn” of verse one to “born”. The subject of verse one is that Yahweh had “torn” Israel, and in verse two the subject is that, after being torn, Yahweh would revive us (Israel) from our being “torn” and “bind” (heal) us once more to life. This passage has nothing to do with the date that Christ was “born”! Nor can the starting date of the “three days” be linked to Christ’s birth. The following is what I wrote in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #48 for April, 2002: [Beginning of quote.]

This idea of a future millennium is built around a nonbiblical theory called “dispensationalism.” It presupposes that after each one thousand years since Adam, the Almighty scrapped His plans and started all over again. This is somehow conjectured to represent a week in God’s calendar. It is hypothesized that the future millennium will represent a Sabbath of rest for the Almighty when He will retire after such a disastrous failure in His program. The only problem is, if we go by the chronological dates of the Septuagint, we are now approximately 7,500 years after Adam. If these dates are correct, it puts us 500 years beyond that so-called millennium period. One of the Scriptures used to reinforce a future millennium is Hosea 6:1-2 which says:

“¹ Come and let us return unto Yahweh: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. ² After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.”

Interestingly, future millennium proponents assign each day as 1000 years, with which I agree. They theorize the “smiting” as the Crucifixion, placing the millennium about 2037 A.D. Rather than speaking of the Crucifixion, this passage addresses three campaigns against Israel and Judah (except for Jerusalem), covering a period from 745 to 681 B.C. Two thousand years from this period would be approximately 1255 to 1319 A.D. This passage indicates only “after two days” and the raising up would be in the third day. That brings us up to the date of the great Reformation about 1375 to 1425 A.D.

It appears the Norse, in their body of epic literature, had a better handle on this thing than we have now. The amillennialist position (that the millennium is already past) is the only position that makes any sense, for Satan has been loosed from his ghetto and we are now in the era of his great deception. If you don’t believe it, just try telling someone today’s “Jews” are not God’s chosen people! You can’t get any more deceived than that! Do you think the Almighty, after straightening us out on that one, is going to allow us to fall in that ditch again? If you believe in a future millennium, then you do! To believe in a future one thousand year millennium is at variance with 2 Thes. 2:8, which states unequivocally that Satan will be destroyed at Yahshua’s second coming. If “that Wicked” is going to be destroyed at that point, how is Satan going to raise his head again a second time? That verse reads:

“And then shall that Wicked be revealed whom Yahshua shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” [End of quote,]

From http://www.isitso.org/guide/wyatt.html we read:

“In addition, he claimed in relation to his alleged discovery of the Ark of the Covenant and the Ten Commandment stones that the stones would be ‘brought out’ for the world to see in fulfillment of ‘end time prophecy’ as it is taught by the Seventh Day Adventist denomination. When not directed to a strictly SDA audience, this prophetic scenario was couched by Wyatt (and now by his successors) in quite general terms, which might be accepted by many non-SDA Christians. The scenario indicates that some day in the very near future, the Anti-Christ and his system will take over rule of the world. He will impose the ‘Mark of the Beast’ on everyone, except those brave Saints who refuse to accept that mark and are willing to be martyred instead. And at that point the Ten Commandment stones will be brought out as a witness to the world of the True Religion.”

This is further evidence that Ron Wyatt was following the satanic zionist’s agenda of the Kenite-Edomite-jews. This is the last thing we need in Israel Identity! And Eli James is unlocking our back door and letting them in! I hope he wakes up to his error!

Wyatt associate Bill Fry had also written: “He [the angel in the chamber] then walked back over to Ron and told him two things. The first was that if Ron remained faithful, he would have a part in bringing out the tables of stone so that they might be put on display. The second was that the Ark was not to be revealed to the world or the tables of stone put on display until shortly after a law was passed that would attempt to enforce the mark of the beast upon people.”

From www.arkdiscovery.com we read:

“Shortly there will follow a death decree against all true Sabbath keepers and the time described as the time of Jacob’s trouble would commence. This ends in the deliverance of the saints who refuse to receive the mark of the beast by keeping Sunday. At that time we are told by Ellen White, all those since 1844 who died keeping the third angel’s message will be raised from their graves with their immortal bodies. This would of necessity be after the time of Jacob’s trouble and at the time of the deliverance of the saints from the death penalty connected with the Sunday law and the mark of the beast ...”

GARBAGE, GARBAGE, this is all GARBAGE! Jacob’s troubles were to last for “seven times”, or 2520 years, starting about 745 B.C.! Ron Wyatt is an IDIOT! Let’s spew this Ron-foolery out of Israel Identity!

DANGER, DANGER, DANGER – beware of the venom of Ron Wyatt! Lies are like a cobra’s venom, and a cobra can rise up to strike one in the face! Ron Wyatt died August 4, 1999, but wittingly or unwittingly there are others carrying on his evil agenda! BEWARE, BEWARE, BEWARE, the doctrine of Ron Wyatt is the antithesis (opposition) of TWO SEEDLINE TRUTH! After Wyatt’s death, Jonathan Gray took up his phony cause, and today Eli James (who claims to be a Two Seedliner) is close on Gray’s heels!

Eli James, on Internet Radio interviewed Jonathan Gray May 31, 2009 where Gray stated the following: “The beginning of the story there was a prophecy of the coming Messiah, in fact right there in the book of Genesis, Genesis 3:15. Right from the very start the promise of the coming Messiah was made. ... So once again, as an archaeologist, I’m concerned more and more in my own work ... that you can depend upon the Bible. In fact, there is not one theological discovery that has ever been made that has disproved any Bible statement.” Again, James interviewed Gray June 13, 2010, where Gray further stated: “The virgin birth actually proves that Jesus was what He claimed to be, whereas the opponents say that this is a scandal, and Christianity is a fraud ... and I think there are Jewish commentators from the past who say even Genesis 3:15 foretells of a virgin birth ... seed of the woman and not of the man.” “... not of the man”? Oh really?

On these two occasions, Eli James had the opportunity to explain to Jonathan Gray that not only was our Messiah prophesied at Genesis 3:15, but that Eve was “the mother of all living (i.e., ‘chay’)”, Gen. 3:20. The implication is that the word seed can be both singular and plural, denoting the Holy Adamic Race collectively. To limit the seed of the woman to one individual, as Gray did in these two instances, is a major misuse of the term! James not only omitted to correct Gray that the seed of the woman was also representative of “many” in nature, but that the seed of the serpent was also collective in the same manner. It is obvious, then, that Ron Wyatt and company didn’t teach Two Seedline, but rather took the identical position as the one seedliners and anti-seedliners! This is like going in reverse at full speed.

While one should use caution when consulting Biblical commentaries, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown did quite well (at least in part) in theirs on Gen. 3:15, vol. 1 of 6, page 57:

“‘... I will put enmity between thee and the woman.’ God is often represented as doing that which He permits to be done; and therefore, as it is contrary to His holy and benevolent character to produce disorder or sow the seeds of dissension amongst any orders of His creatures, the statement here made must be regarded as a prophetic intimation of the moral state of this world, as a theatre of conflict between man and the powers of evil. There is a covert allusion to the temporary alliance between the serpent and the woman, for now that she had found in her dire experience that he had ensnared her to her ruin, she would henceforth recoil from him as an insidious and deadly enemy. and between thy seed and her seed [2233 ‘seed’ zera‘] – the act of sowing, as well as seed, though used in reference to an individual (Gen. iv. 25; xxi. 13), commonly denotes plurality, and is equivalent to children, progeny, posterity (Gen. xiii. 16; xv. 5. 13; xvii. 7. 10; Ps. xxii. 23; cf. 2 Ki. xi. 1). Accordingly Kurtz – though recognizing the prophetic character of this passage – views the phrase ‘seed of the woman’ as equivalent to all the human [sic Adamic] race; and the modern Jews [sic Canaanite-jews] also take it as meaning collectively the children whom she shall bring forth – the whole family of [Adam]-man. But ‘the seed of the woman’ being contrasted with ‘the seed of the serpent,’ a designation, in this context, and conformably to Scripture usage elsewhere, of the wicked portion of mankind (cf. John viii 44; viii. 38, with Matt. xxiii. 33; 1 John iii. 8), the expression must evidently be considered as restricted to the children of God, ‘who are born not of the flesh, but of the spirit’ (cf. Gal. iii. 29); and from its denoting individuality in the following clause, as specially applied to one whose miraculous birth gave him a pre-eminent title to be called ‘the seed of the woman’ (cf. Gal. iv. 4). The prophecy points to a continual struggle which would be carried on between the offspring of the woman and the grand enemy of God and man: and no language could more appropriately describe the mighty conflict, of which this world has ever since been the theatre, between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. To us the words have a higher significance than they could have had to our first parents. Who does not now accept them as an epitomized history of the holy war which, from the moment of the fall, has been waged between the children of light and of darkness, between those who adhere to the cause of God and righteousness, and those who are ranged on the side of the Devil by their love and practice of sin? It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel – [1931 ‘it’ hûw‘ is a personal pronoun in the masculine gender ... shall watch or lie in wait, so as to attack; to fall upon suddenly (cf. Job ix. 17; Ps. cxxxix. 2; cf. Rom. xvi. 20), and the clause is thus rendered by Gesenius, ‘He shall seek to crush thy head, and thou shalt seek to bite his heel’]. The leading idea is founded in the habit of the insidious serpent to bite its victim in the heel or behind, and that of mankind striking or dashing at a serpent’s head with a club. The same verb is used to describe the attack upon the head and the heel, to show that destruction is aimed at in both: But though the bite of a serpent on the heel of a man; when the poison infects the blood, is dangerous, it is not incurable. The crushing of the serpent’s head, however, is destruction. ... The seed of the woman who was to bruise the serpent’s head is connected with a singular verb and pronoun, and, denoting therefore an individual, points to Christ personally in a peculiar and emphatic sense. ...”

!!ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WYATT WAS LYING!!

After studying this case, it is quite evident to me that there are two camps within the Seventh Day Adventist church, maybe even three. From the content of Adventist Uriah Smith’s book Daniel And The Revelation, it leaves no question in the reader’s mind that he took a historical view of prophecy. On the other hand, from the evidence which was contributed by Skip Baker on May 31, 2009, when he called into Eli James’ Talkshoe on the Internet, Baker stated:

“I just wanted to mention, in the other video tape, if I recall correctly, Ron claimed he videotaped the Ark and had got good pictures of it finally. He goes back to his hotel and got to thinking ‘Well what should I do with this?’ Then he said, of all things, he would go back and ask the four angels that he had met in the cave. So he goes back and asks them, ‘What should I do with this video tape?’ They said, ‘We’ll take it, because God wants it to come out when the mark of the beast happens.’ And he said he gave it to them, and they took it with them, although they didn’t demand it when he came and asked ‘what shall I do with this?’ They said, ‘We’ll take it.’ That was a little tidbit I picked up by watching the movie part.” This is futurism, not historicism!

The damning part of this is the sentence: “We’ll take it, because God wants it to come out when the mark of the beast happens.” The “mark of the beast” is already fulfilled history, as explained in detail in part 3 of this series, so either the angels were liars or it was Wyatt who lied about the whole “Christ’s blood on the Mercy Seat” and “finding of the Ark of the Covenant” account!

The following is a note that I made at the end of lesson #10 of 14 of Bertrand L. Comparet’s series on The Book Of Revelation: Note: It is your humble transcriber’s opinion that the interdict by the Pope did indeed historically fulfill Revelation 13:16, concerning the mark. It should be noted that the total numerical value of “Vicar of Christ” adds up to 666 in Latin. It must be remembered that this is a number relating to a man. At the time John wrote his Revelation, the 10th century Arabic numbers which we use today had not yet been invented. Before the Arabic numeral system, various numerical values were assigned to several letters of the alphabets of different languages. And indeed, VICARIUS FILII DEI (Vicar of Christ) in Roman numerals adds up to 666. There are several instances in which various names of persons can add up to 666, but the man at Revelation 13:11-18 is a two-horned beast. Two-horned because he ruled over governments, both ecclesiastical and civil. And when the history of Revelation 13:11-18 is properly identified, none other but the office of the Pope can qualify. It might parallel in some manner the United Nations interdict called “sanctions”, in which trade between nations is restricted. But surely the United Nations is not the two-horned beast at Revelation 13:11-18! Therefore, the taking of the “mark of the beast” is past history and we should not be concerned with that during our present time period. We should not yield to the scare tactics being promoted today by uninformed and unqualified propagandists.

Comparet in lesson #8 stated: “In southern France you had a considerable Protestant group, the Albigenses, who were finally hounded to extinction, massacred to the last man, woman and child by the 14th century. You ask ‘How did the Pope do this when he didn’t have a standing army, at least other than in his dominions in Italy?’ He did it because he claimed power over all kings. Remember, the peoples of all these European countries were basically Catholic. They had been taught that the Pope, or indeed any Catholic priest, could take any of these persons and condemn him to hell if he saw fit, and there he was going. It didn’t matter that Yahshua the Christ died on the cross to save him from that. If the Pope or the priest said: ‘You are going to hell’, you went to hell. And they taught a very impressive idea of what hell was like. Remember, the Pope claimed the right to give the crown to any king, and likewise to depose any king. If the king said, ‘Well pooh-pooh to you – I’m here, and the head of my army, now what are you going to do?’ The Pope could do something about it; he excommunicated the king and he put the whole kingdom under the interdict until that king either was removed or had made his peace with the Pope.

“Under the interdict, no priest would perform any religious ceremony. You couldn’t be married. If one of your relatives died, you could dig a hole in the ground, but not in a consecrated cemetery. You couldn’t have any funeral ceremony for him. And remember that everybody believed that unless one bought his way out of purgatory, by paying a good sum of money to the ‘church’, that he was going to burn in flames for thousands of years. Maybe this was your beloved mother that was just buried – she couldn’t ever go to heaven – she hadn’t been buried in a consecrated cemetery and no priest was going to say a Mass for her. Likewise, all Catholics, everywhere, were forbidden to carry on any kind of transaction with people who were under that interdict. If your country needed to import part of its food supply, that was shut off. Who was going to sell it to you? If you needed to sell your products abroad, who was going to buy from you? In other words, everything in a nation just simply came to a screeching halt. The people were told ‘now look, your relatives that have died in this period have all gone forever to hell, and you yourself are going there too because the ‘Church’ isn’t going to get you out of it unless you get rid of this king.’ It didn’t take long for that kingdom to have a very effective revolution for the king to deal with. Thus, when the Pope told the king of any country ‘There are heretics in your kingdom, and I command you to slaughter them all and stamp out heresy’, that king was going to do it. And he did it.”

In Lesson #10, Comparet stated: “In 1809 he (Napoleon) annexed the Papal States. During the period of anarchy, between the fall of Rome and Charlemagne taking over, the Pope had expanded his power until he ruled, you might say, the central third of the Italian peninsula. Later, under the more powerful kings of the restored empire, he was given additional bits and tatters of territory. Therefore, he had fully a third of all Italy as the Papal States. Hence, Napoleon had annexed the Papal States – remember, he’d already shown the Pope that the crown was not the Pope’s to give. Pope Pius the 7th then excommunicated Napoleon. In the past, that had been a terribly powerful weapon. You’ll remember that the Pope excommunicated Henry the 7th of Germany, a maneuver which just simply took him off the throne. He had to come to where the Pope was at Canossa and humbly begged for forgiveness. The Pope kept him standing outside the castle barefooted in snow for three days before he would let him in. In a country whose people were Catholic, the interdict upon the nation, or excommunication of the king was a terrifically serious thing, because when the population was substantially all Catholic, they were forbidden, under pain of eternal damnation, to recognize that they owed any loyalty to the excommunicated king. They couldn’t even deliver food for him to eat, nor could they have any dealings with one who had been excommunicated by the ‘church.’ Hence, the Pope thought he had a terrific weapon against Napoleon. But Napoleon simply arrested and imprisoned the Pope until he signed a treaty, recognizing Napoleon’s conquest of the Papal States. Therefore, if you listen to some preachers nowadays telling you that the Catholic ‘Church’ is about to gain worldwide dominion, that’s another of these foolish ideas.”

This has been a concise analysis of the “mark” of the “beast” at Revelation 13:17, and Napoleon’s subduing the pope’s authority. This contrived “angel story” alone about some future “mark of the beast” brings all of Ron Wyatt’s wild claims into question! This shows that his premise is based on futurism rather than an historical Biblical interpretation. This places him in league with Cyrus I. Scofield, a member of the Lotus Club (a branch of the Illuminati), who was bought and paid for by such Canaanite-jews as Samuel Gompers, Fiorello LaGuardia, Abraham Straus, Bernard Baruch, Jacob Schiff and Samuel Untermeyer; actual descendants of the Cain-satanic-seedline of Gen. 3:15! [lowercase “pope” mine]

Wyatt’s associate Bill Fry wrote: “He [the angel in the chamber] then walked back over to Ron and told him two things. The first was that if Ron remained faithful, he would have a part in bringing out the tables of stone so that they might be put on display. The second was that the Ark was not to be revealed to the world or the tables of stone put on display until shortly after a law was passed that would attempt to enforce the mark of the beast upon people.”

I have given substantial evidence that the “mark of the beast” was fulfilled in the pope claiming to be the “vicar of Christ” on earth, and was in force for 1260 years, according to a correct historical interpretation, not the phony “futurist” interpretation of Cyrus I. Scofield which Ron Wyatt’s errant theology parallels. The second testimony to Wyatt’s falsehood is Jeremiah 31:33: “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith Yahweh, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

This is supported by the apostle Paul at Hebrews 8:10, which reads: “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Yahweh; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.”

So what is all of this business of a dreamed-up angel promising Ron Wyatt that he would be the instrument for presenting the law (and Israel and Judah were the only people ever destined for this in both the Old Testament and the New)? Those old stone tablets with the law written on them didn’t work in Old Testament times, neither have written laws worked since the Crucifixion, nor will they be effective in the future! Only the law written in the Israelite conscience will ever be effective! The stone tablets of the law only served as a “type” that would later be written in the hearts and minds of the twelve Israelite tribes. After having Yahweh’s law written in our conscience, why would anyone want to return to the letters of the law contained in the Ark of the Covenant? Hence, Wyatt’s tale continues to fall apart!

Wyatt’s problem was, he was excavating in the wrong place! He should rather have done his excavating in the heavenly Tabernacle and searched there for the heavenly Ark of the Covenant (called “the Ark of His Testament”, Rev. 11:19). To understand the heavenly tabernacle, we must take into account Hebrews 8:1-2 & 5-6:

“¹ Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; ² A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which Yahweh pitched, and not man. ... ³ For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. ⁴ For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: ⁵ Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things ...”

On the mount of transfiguration, once Peter had a vision of the heavenly Tabernacle, he was no longer pleased with the Temple at Jerusalem (Matt. 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33). A fair scholarly treatment of this subject is found in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. R-Z, page 506, under the subtitle:

“5. The tabernacle in the New Testament. The influence of the terminology is to be seen in such phrases as John 1:14: ‘The Word ... dwelt [i.e., ‘tabernacled’] among us,’ and the laver or ‘washing of regeneration’ (Tit. 3:5). Then there are references to the tabernacle in Acts 7:44; Rev. 13:6; 15:5; 21:3. The Letter to the Hebrews sets forth the Christian interpretation of the Mosaic tabernacle. Its titles show the presence of God, his righteousness, and his ‘conversableness.’ The furniture of the court symbolizes man’s approach to God, just as the furniture of the most holy place represents God’s approach to man in holiness, grace, and sovereignty. According to Hebrews, the tabernacle is modeled on a heavenly pattern (8:5); it has its divine prototype (8:2, 5; 9:11), the ‘greater and more perfect tent’; it has a symbolic meaning for the writer’s age (9:9), but the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing. But when Christ appeared, he entered once for all, not into the human sanctuary, but into heaven (9:24). Similarly in Rev. 21:3 the dwelling of God with men is identified with the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven, dwelling among men, and removing all tears, sorrow, pain, and death.

“But even heaven and the New Jerusalem are not the real culmination of the tabernacle image. After all, the tabernacle and the New Jerusalem are only places. What is of chief significance is that the tabernacle is the place of the presence. The tabernacle thus properly belongs to the theology of the Incarnation. No doubt, the idea of the presence dwelling in a place had begun to give way even in the O.T. to the idea of the presence living in a person. But this personifying of the presence image of O.T. faith took place fully in the person of Jesus Christ, ‘for in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell’ (Col. 1: 19; cf. 2:9).”

A very fitting excerpt from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. Q-Z, p. 582, on this topic propitiatory, in finalizing reads: “Paul directly equates the cross of Calvary as God’s mercy seat, or the redemption of sinful man (Rom. 3:25).” As we see, from this last excerpt, the blood-soaked cross of Christ served in place of the Mercy Seat that was in the Holy place, thus making the Mercy Seat only a shadow of the cross to come!

If you thought you heard everything there was to hear in the first four brochures on this subject, you ain’t heard nothin’ yet! The clowns who are promoting Ron Wyatt and company must think the rest of us are gullible, incompetent morons! There are so many fallacious postulations provoked by these inciters of twisted conjecture, it is hard to decide on which part of their pretzel factory presuppositions to address next!

Before I get started with this issue, I would like the reader to understand that I am going to address some of Ron Wyatt’s claims that judicially call for cautious investigation, for the narrative we are given by him and his associates, along with his disciples, simply does not correlate with other established facts. So what you are about to read is highly suspect, and you will see why as we go along!

I will start this paper by citing some remarks made by Jonathan Gray during an Internet Radio interview conducted by Eli James on June 13, 2010. About 40 minutes into the interview, the discussion turns to the Egyptian chariots used while pursuing the Israelites through the Sea of Reeds. Here is part of the exchange between Eli James and Jonathan Gray:

James: “Now isn’t there something – couple – unique features of these chariot wheels that are almost impossible to fake?” Gray: “Yes”. James: “Well let’s talk about those.” Gray: “Right, Ron actually took up part of a chariot wheel, took it off to Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities department in Cairo. And this man (Hassan) without any hesitation said the 18th [???]. Now, we are talking about the traditional counting methods they use; 18th Dynasty which is the Thutmose Dynasty. Of course, we have the name Moses, who was adopted into that family. This is from the time, as you people would say, was the time of Moses. And that is because Moses was there at that time. How are you so quick to make an assessment? He (Hassan) said, ‘Because that was the only time when the eight-spoke wheel was ever used’; eight spokes.” James: “So most wheels had what?...six?” Gray: “Six and four and eight.” James: “Six and four and eight? But you say only during the time of the Exodus was the eight-spoke wheel used?” Gray: “That is correct.” So the reader will get a better comprehension of this conversation, I will quote this same incident from the website:

http://readatsaintandrews.blogspot.com/:

“Among those who accompanied Wyatt on many of his excursions is his wife, Mary Nell. She’s concerned about over-exuberance regarding new claims, but the Spring Hill, Tenn., woman tells WorldNetDaily she’s ‘convinced’ there are chariot parts located on a subsurface ‘land bridge’ connecting Egypt to Saudi Arabia through the Gulf of Aqaba.

“She cites Ron’s discovery of a wheel hub that he brought to the surface in the late 1970s as proof. The hub had the remains of eight spokes radiating outward and was examined by Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities in Cairo. Hassan declared it to be from the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, explaining the eight-spoked wheel was used only during that dynasty around 1400 B.C. Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today, though Hassan is on videotape stating his conclusion regarding authenticity.

“When Mary Nell went diving with Ron, she says it was very easy to assume (wrongly) that every item on the flat bottom had historical significance.” [parenthesis not mine]

It appears the only so-called expert witness that we have on this eight-spoked wheel is one Egyptian by the name of “Nassif Mohammed Hassan”. Now these multi-breed Egyptians are not the best people to consult on things like this. I remember when I was watching TV on either the Learning Channel or one of the Educational channels, they had an archaeological program where they were testing the DNA of some of the early pharaohs of the 18th dynasty. They cut a small sample of bone from one of the mummies and placed it in a grinder which looked somewhat like a blender, except with much greater power. I noticed that when they did this test, they didn’t clean the grinder after the last time they had used it. The bone-grinder had a transparent housing, and the TV viewer could clearly see the residue of the previous DNA test. Then the multi-breed Egyptian at the head of the Egyptian DNA laboratory claimed that the present-day Egyptians were of the same DNA as those of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, which was a damned lie, for Egypt became a mulatto nation by the time of Jeremiah, and further absorbed the genetics of several arab nations in the first few centuries A.D.! So, why should we believe this multi-breed Nassif Mohammed Hassan, or any other “mule”-person?

Another website that had this same information added a bit more, at:

http://www.2001translation.com/pharaoh.htm

“They found several six-spoked wheels, as well as an eight-spoked wheel. Ron removed the hub of a wheel which had the remains of eight spokes radiating outward from it. He took this to Cairo, to the office of Nassif Mohammed Hassan, the director of Antiquities with whom Ron had been working. Mr Hassan examined it and immediately pronounced it to be of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. When asked how he knew this so readily, Mr Hassan explained that the eight-spoked wheel was used only during the 18th Dynasty.”

Another website reproducing this data added more at:

http://pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/discovered/html/chapter11.htm

“We began to thoroughly research the Egyptian chariot and soon discovered that the fact that Ron and the boys found 4, 6 and 8-spoked wheels places the Exodus in the 18th Dynasty according to numerous sources, such as the following: ‘Egyptian literary references to chariots occur as early as the reigns of Kamose, the 17th Dynasty king who took the first steps in freeing Egypt from the Hyksos, and Ahmose, the founder of the 18th Dynasty. Pictorial representations, however, do not appear until slightly later in the 18th Dynasty....’ (From ‘Observations on the Evolving Chariot Wheel in the 18th Dynasty’ by James K. Hoffmeier, JARCE #13, 1976).” I checked James K. Hoffmeier on the Internet, and I couldn’t find a single word he had said concerning chariots in the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, except for referring back to Nassif Mohammed Hassan himself. So it appears to be one man’s opinion, if one can consider such a hybrid a man. The only other related subject that Hoffmeier addressed was how wooden objects can sink to the bottom of the sea.

For a few grains of insight, for what little it is worth, we find at the website: answers.yahoo.com/question/index:

“Have Chariot wheels been discovered at the bottom of the Red Sea? ... Best Answer - Chosen by Voters. No they have not. If you are in search of proof of the passover story understand that the common translation of the Hebrew as being ‘red sea’ is incorrect. They believe that the Hebrews actually traveled further north towards the delta of the red sea and crossed via the delta marshes. ... The correct translation of the Hebrew is Sea of Reeds (i.e. a marsh). In most Torah translations this has been corrected and we now refer correctly to the location as the Sea of Reeds and not the red sea when retelling the passover story. [strike-throughs mine, “marsh” not correct]

“Note: to the person who said wood floats and would not survive being in water, please research Nautical Archaeology. Many a sunken ship from the bronze age has been found in the Mediterranean as well as an intact ship found in Galilee that dates back to Jesus’ time ... yes 2000 years ago ...”

EIGHT-SPOKE CHARIOT WHEELS FIRST

USED BY THE ASSYRIANS ABOUT 700 B.C.

The following documentation is contradictory to the testimony of Jonathan Gray! From The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. A-C, page 780, under the heading “Chariot” we read in part (as this will be only about 20% of the article, but enough to cover our subject):

“... 1. Chariots in the ancient Near East. Heavy wheeled vehicles drawn by asses were used in Southern Mesopotamia throughout the 3rd millennium B.C. and are represented in finds from Ur, Kish and Tell Agrab. From Tell Agrab dating circa 2500 B.C., comes a small copper model of a war chariot drawn by four asses. It consists of a flat platform, a pole and two disc wheels, and it was driven by a single driver.

“The true chariot which was much lighter was drawn by the faster horse (q.v.). It did not come into use until the 2nd millennium B.C., when folk movements brought peoples from the Southern Russian steppes and introduced the horse to Mesopotamia. The art of warfare was revolutionized by the horse-drawn chariot. The term ‘horse’ occurs in cuneiform inscriptions as an ideogram meaning ‘foreigners,’ and in phonetic form as sisû in 19th century tablets from Anatolia. These folk movements had already reached Asia Minor in the 19th century B.C. As the 2nd millennium wore on, Hittites in Anatolia, Kassites in Mesopotamia and Hyksos in Syria, Palestine and Egypt all gained advantage in warfare by the use of the chariot. The Hyksos were enabled thereby to conquer most of Syria and Egypt between circa 1800 and circa 1600 B.C.

“The disc wheel gave place to the spoked wheel about 1700 B.C. when wheels with four, or more regularly, six spokes, came into use and remained until about the 10th cent. B.C. The Assyrians in the days of Ashurnasirpal II (circa 883-859) began to use eight spokes. Such wheels remained in use down to Persian times. ...” [emphasis mine]

Jonathan Gray places the supposed first use of the eight-spoke Egyptian chariot wheel from before 1400 B.C. – the time of the Exodus – yet the above documentation places its first use more than 500 years later! Both cannot be correct!

From The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. A-D, page 780, under the heading “Chariot” we read in part (as this will only be about 10% of the article, but enough to cover our subject):

“... 2. Origin and development. Wheeled vehicles drawn by asses are attested in Mesopotamia as early as the end of the fourth millennium. A copper model of a chariot drawn by four asses found at Tell Aqrab (third millennium) has a single rider with two disk-wheels on which is mounted a body consisting of a simple board continuing the line of the heavy pole astride which stood the driver. ... The earliest spoked wheels are attested in the time of Hammurabi (cf. the Cappadocian cylinder seals). Wheels contained four or six spokes, the latter predominating, until the time of Shalmaneser III. Under Ashurnasirpal II eight-spoked chariot wheels appear (also Syrian?), and were taken over by the Assyrians, where they remain characteristic until the Persian period. Unusual was the twelve-spoked wheel, found only in Elamite chariots. ...” [emphasis mine]

Here we have further testimony bringing into question the sworn word of Jonathan Gray! Can we attribute this to Gray’s gullibility in believing a multi-breed so-called Egyptology expert? The following is what I wrote in my paper, Mexicans Traced To Cain (Satan’s Son):

“One cannot fully comprehend the racial makeup of the arabs and jews unless he understands the history of Egypt from A.D. 639 until the time of Napoleon I in 1798. The history of Egypt during this period is essentially the history of the entire Middle East. Genghis Khan, in his exploits, left a mongol genetic flavor to the population wherever he conquered new territory. Egypt, during this period, found herself under various rulerships. In A.D. 639 the arabs invaded Egypt and came to power. Next were the Fatimids in A.D. 909. After this came the Ayyubids in 1174. Then in 1517 A.D. came the Mamelukes, followed by the Ottomans when Egypt was governed from Istanbul. If you don’t understand the history of the Middle East during this period, don’t pretend you know all about the arabs and jews today!

“In the 1200’s, Genghis Khan sold a company of slaves to the Sultan of Egypt, made up of turks and Circassians (people who inhabited the Caucasus, not to be confused with the White Caucasians), and were also trained as soldiers, to become the Sultan’s bodyguards. Soon the Mamelukes overthrew the Egyptian Sultan and put their own sultan in power. The Mameluke sultans then overran Asia Minor, Syria, and the island of Cyprus. In the wake of all these arab and turk exploits, the various populations were left with a multi-racial flavor as genetic hybrid mutants.” [lowercase “a” & “t” mine]

These are the kind of genetic misfits whom Jonathan Gray trusts to tell him the truth. Also, the Wyatt 24 chromosome story came from an alleged Canaanite-jewish lab (that is, if Wyatt ever had the alleged blood of Christ tested in the first place), and Gray asserts that Wyatt had consulted with one of these modern-day mamzer Egyptians about a wheel hub! It’s tantamount to consulting with the Devil! And what’s more disturbing is, Eli James (a professed Two-seedline Israel Identity believer) buys this kind of bull-feces!

I would also point out to the reader that the chariot of King Tutankhamen is on display in the Cairo Museum today, and it clearly has six spokes on each of its two wheels, as shown in the several pictures I have of it. According to the list of pharaohs of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, King Tutankhamen followed Thutmose III (the pharaoh of the Oppression) by only about a hundred years (The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt, page 134). Whatever the significance of the six-spoked wheel, whether an improvement in engineering or the latest style, we reach a similar conclusion. Given the elegance of the rest of the goods of Tutankhamen’s tomb, the six-spoked chariot wheel was the best or most fashionable at his time! An outmoded design or inferior style would not have been entombed with the pharaoh! In other words, if the Egyptians had had an eight-spoked chariot at the time of the Exodus, the chariot belonging to Tutankhamen sitting in the Cairo Museum today would have eight-spoked wheels!

LEAVING THE ISSUE OF THE EIGHT-SPOKED WHEEL,

WHERE DID ISRAEL CROSS THE SEA OF REEDS?

If you thought the problem with the eight-spoked chariot wheel was detrimental, wait till you hear that Wyatt and associates searched at the wrong location in order to find any archaeological evidence that Israel ever crossed the Sea of Reeds! So the reader will understand that I’m not just spouting empty words, I would point out that I have a book entitled On The Track Of The Exodus by Lieut.-Colonel C.C. Robertson, D.S.O. with a forward by Rev. E.H. Thorold, C.B., C.B.E. M.A., D.D., Chaplain-General to the Forces, A reprint of the 1936 edition by Gale & Polden, LTD. - London, published by Artisan Sales, by the late E. Raymond Capt. Capt was an accomplished archaeologist and would have been quite careful not to handle any books that would be misleading in his field of endeavor. So what I’m about to reveal, one might entitle E. Raymond Capt vs. Ron Wyatt.

From the Publisher’s Forward we read in part: “On the Track of the Exodus, is a well-written book, deserving a wide readership. The author has studied the question of the Exodus in minute detail. He has succeeded in solving many difficulties and problems arising in respect to the traditional route of the Exodus and Mount Sinai. The result of his research presents the most probable location in which the Israelites sojourned during their long stay in the wilderness.”

From the Author’s Preface we read in part: “... My acknowledgments are due to the Admiralty, for permission to publish the sketch map of a section of the Gulf of Suez based upon British Admiralty Chart No. 757; and to the War Office for their reproduction of the map entitled Elim – Zin – Sinai, from a section of Sheet 4 of the 1/250,000 Sinai Peninsula series.

“Mr. G.W. Murray, M.C., Director of Desert Surveys, Cairo, has given untiring help to questions regarding the physical geography of Egypt and Sinai. The topography of the country north of Aqaba is the subject of reports from the Assistant Director of Desert Surveys, Palestine, and the Director of Lands, Transjordania. ...”

Now the British might do many things wrong, but one can be quite certain the British Admiralty will have up-to-date maps with every land topography properly named and located, as well as all navigation obstacles mapped-out perfectly to assure safe sailing. Knowing this, we can be quite sure that the author of this book has used only the best maps available to him. In quoting all of this from this book, you can understand my consternation when I compared Robertson’s maps with those of Ron Wyatt’s on his Internet website. Wyatt has errors all over his map.

What Charles C. Robertson did in his research, which I am not aware of anyone else doing, was that he took into account the day-to-day movement of the 2½ to 3 million Israelites, and carefully identified each campground with Scripture, and then verified that location by the topography of the area. When one contemplates these 2½ to 3 million Israelites moving along on foot with their cattle and pack animals, some pulling two-wheeled carts with the supplies they would need, the problem with logistics is mind boggling! For anyone who would want to simulate such an experience, I suggest that they plan to walk sometime to a nearby town 25 miles away, with no rest stops or restaurants along the way.

Now the body of water we often refer to as the “Red Sea”, if properly translated from the Hebrew, would be the “Sea of Reeds”. Robertson on his map shows that in ancient times that both the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba were designated as the Sea of Reeds. The traditional view, which was also the view of Wyatt, was that the Gulf of Aqaba was the Biblical “Red Sea”. But Robertson, in his meticulous research, determined that it rather had to be the Gulf of Suez. The question at this point is: Upon what information has Wyatt concluded his estimate of where Israel crossed the Sea of Reeds?

At this point, I would invite everyone interested in this subject to obtain a copy of Robertson’s book and compare the contents with the allegations of Ron Wyatt and come to their own conclusions! I will point out, however, if the Israelites crossed through the Gulf of Aqaba at the location Wyatt identifies (according to his map), they could very easily have marched around the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba to the other side. On the other hand, if the Israelites crossed through the Gulf of Suez, as Robertson suggests, it was because they had no place where they could escape from the Egyptians, as the Biblical account verifies. The formidable “Wall of the Ruler” divided Egypt from Arabia roughly along the line of the modern Suez Canal (ANET. p. 19). Hence, in short, under Wyatt’s hypothesis, the Israelites were not trapped and could have escaped the Egyptians, but under Robertson’s premise, the Israelites were trapped without any prospect of escaping the Egyptians other than the intervention of Yahweh. Now I wouldn’t suggest that Robertson is correct on every count, but he displays a whole lot more scholarship than Ron Wyatt!

Also, the factor of a “strong east wind” at Exod. 14:21 is important, as it is compatible with the Gulf of Suez and incompatible with the Gulf of Aqaba. Robertson stated, p. 70: “The Hebrews observed four points of the compass only – north, south, east and west. The east covered all bearings between north-east and south-east. A wind blowing straight up the Gulf of Suez would be termed an east wind. The ‘strong east wind’ of Ex. 14:21, may therefore have driven the sea up the gulf without affecting the coast lands.” In other words, an east wind at the Gulf of Suez would blow the water lengthwise up the channel, while at the Gulf of Aqaba, it would blow crosswise from shore to shore. A little detail Ron Wyatt and company completely overlooked! There are many other holes in Wyatt’s story!

As we proceed with Ron Wyatt’s cunning story, we are discovering multiple inaccuracies and holes of inordinate dimensions. For instance, Wyatt believed the traditional theory that the Israelites, in their Exodus from Egypt, crossed through the Gulf of Aqaba rather than the Gulf of Suez! Since both of these gulfs were called “The Sea of Reeds”, many have made this same error. Thus Wyatt explored in the wrong place to find Egyptian chariot wheels! The following are some of the postings on the Internet. First at:

http://biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/08/New-Evidence-from-Egypt-on-the-Location-of-the-Exodus-Sea-Crossing-Part-II.aspx where we find (only on this website) by Gary Byers MA:

“4. You say: ‘There is concrete archaeological evidence of a Gulf of Aqaba crossing. There is also evidence of the Israelites camping in Saudi Arabia.’ The opposite is the case. There is not one shred of evidence from archaeology to support the Saudi Arabia thesis. This idea was propagated by Ron Wyatt and more recently by Robert Cornuke. Their theories have been thoroughly discredited. This is an excellent book on the subject of Ron Wyatt ...” We also find more at:

http://anchorstone.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=29&Itemid=53

“Red Sea Crossing Update ... December 14, 1998 ... December, 1998 Dive Trip by Bill Fry ... ‘In December of 1998, I along with 8 other people including Ron Wyatt, traveled to Nuweiba, Egypt on the Gulf of Aqaba to spend two days diving at the location where Moses and the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea on dry land.’

“Video: The Red Sea Crossing ... December 22, 2007 ... Ron Wyatt shows you the very spot where Moses and the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba fleeing Pharaoh’s army. He leads you to the very blackened peak of Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia!” Not only did Wyatt and company search in the wrong gulf for evidence for Israel’s Sea of Reeds crossing , but they explored the wrong Mt. Sinai! There are so many aspects of Israel’s history (both Biblical and secular) not taken into account by Wyatt and company, it is dumbfounding! A good place to start is to find the Egyptian pharaoh who “knew not Joseph”, Exod. 1:8-9:

“⁸ Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. ⁹ And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we.” The word “knew” in this verse is Strong’s Hebrew word #3045, “yâda‘” and has a great variety of meanings (including many Hebrew idioms). To get a better handle on what is being said, I will quote these verses from Charles Thomson’s Septuagint: “[8] there arose another king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph. [9] And he said to his nation, Behold the race of the children of Israel is become a greater multitude, and is mightier than we.”

Thus, it becomes quite clear the reason this new pharaoh didn’t know Joseph was because Joseph was of a different race than he. At times, the KJV renders #3045 as “kinsfolk or kinsman” (more meanings in Hebrew than English, check Amos 3:2). Now for some history concerning this:

FINDING THE PHARAOH OF ISRAEL’S OPPRESSION

Here is part of what I wrote in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #29 for September, 2000:

For the next part of this story, I am going to quote from The Bible As History by Werner Keller, © 1956. Keller gives additional information; that not only did the Egyptians mix with the Hurrians, as stated by Hawkes, but they also mixed with the Hittites. I will cite an excerpt from pages 96-103:

“Shortly before 1400 B.C. the warlike Mitanni (Hurrian) proposed a peaceful settlement with the Egyptians. The enemy became a friend. The kings of Mitanni turned their attention purposefully to dynastic politics. With great pomp and lavish gifts they sent their daughters down to the Nile and married their princesses to the Pharaohs. In three successive generations of rulers Indo-Aryan(?) (meaning Hurrian) and Egyptian blood was mixed for the first time ...”

Jacquetta Hawkes, in her The First Great Civilizations stated that this kind of political relationship continued, pages 81-82: “In the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C., Mitanni extended from the Zagros to the Mediterranean and the kings of Assyria were no more than her vassals. It was the hostile policy of Mitannian kings against Egypt that provoked Thutmose III to march to the Euphrates. Later they made friends with the Egyptians and three generations of princesses, with hundreds of followers, made the hazardous journey to Thebes, where they were given in marriage to Pharaoh and lived out their days in the royal harem.”

The next reference we are going to use is very important as it spells out the relationship of the pharaoh’s family for the next few generations. It is paramount that we understand this interrelation or we will not completely understand the whole story. You may have to read the following quotation several times to fully comprehend it. It is from The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino, page 40:

“... Thutmosis I gave special impetus to the temple building program. He instructed his brilliant architect Ineni to erect massive pylons (towered gateways) at the entrance to the Amun [Amen] temple at Karnak and two giant granite obelisks before the pylons. [Thutmosis spelled various ways]

“Thutmosis I had four children with his chief queen, only one of which lived beyond childhood, a girl named Hatshepsut. Among other children with lesser queens was a son named Thutmosis II who married his half-sister, Hatshepsut. The two could produce no immediate heirs but Thutmosis II fathered a son, Thutmosis III, with a concubine from his harem. The father, now king, named his son as co-regent. Thutmosis II died soon after and Thutmosis III, still a child, ascended to the throne. Hatshepsut, however, had great ambitions. At first she ruled in the name of the young king; but with guile[?] and skill she gained support from the chief viziers, nobles, commanders, and priests, and thrust Thutmosis III into the background, and claimed coregency by right of her birth.”

From Watchman’s Teaching Letter #37 for May, 2001, I addressed more of this story thusly: To start with, in a quote from the book The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino, page 120, we read this:

“It will be recalled that Hatshepsut was the first great queen of Egypt. She married Thutmosis II and after his death seized the throne from Thutmosis III, who after Hatshepsut’s demise was to become one of Egypt’s greatest warrior-kings. To secure her name in history and to prove herself equal to all the male pharaohs before her, she embarked on ambitious building programs during her twenty-year rule (1489-1469 B.C.).”

Princess Hatshepsut was the only surviving child of Tuthmosis I and his queen. As there is no word in the ancient Egyptian language for “queen”, the meaning was simply “king’s great wife.” Had Tuthmosis I had a son, he would have been in line to inherit the throne from his father. With Hatshepsut being a female, and no others contending for the throne, it could pass through her to whomever she might marry. There was a major flaw in this arrangement, as it left an opening for non-royal blood to gain the throne. In the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty this happened several times. In fact, Tuthmosis II, the half-brother whom Hatshepsut married, is a case in point. The exact system of choosing a new king is not precisely known, but, in the 18th Dynasty, it seems that if there was no son to receive the honor, it was passed on through the oldest female, and in turn to her husband. The difference in the case with Hatshepsut is that she took the throne herself after her husband died. It was probably a matter of guardianship at first, until Tuthmosis III became of age, but Hatshepsut evidently decided to remain on the throne, denying Tuthmosis III his seat. In the end, this precipitated a bitter battle between Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III.

In Egypt, the pharaoh often had many wives, and in some cases married a half-sister. All this made the process of passing on the throne rather complex. Upon the death of Tuthmosis I, his son Tuthmosis II, by a minor wife, was married to his half-sister, Hatshepsut. By marrying Hatshepsut, it established Tuthmosis II’s right to the throne which lasted for twenty-two unexceptional years. When Tuthmosis II died, he left a daughter by Hatshepsut and a son, Tuthmosis III, by a minor wife. Hatshepsut then ruled seven years as regent for the young boy. After this time, Hatshepsut took it upon herself to change her title from “Queen” to “King.”

Further from Watchman’s Teaching Letter #40 for August, 2001, I stated:

This is the lady (Hatshepsut) that would have had all the incentive for adopting Moses into the Pharaoh’s household. I covered the lady Pharaoh Hatshepsut to a great extent in both lessons #32 and #37. In lessons #31 and 32, I explained how Moses’ name was derived from the line of pharaohs whose names ended in “mosis”, like in Kamose, Amosis, Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis II, Tuthmosis III, etc. Surely this is not just a coincidence, for several historians have observed this similarity of names. As Moses was adopted by pharaoh’s daughter, surely he would receive the pharaoh’s family name. Hatshepsut’s unique position in Egyptian history makes her a very good candidate for being the one rescuing Moses from a watery grave.

If you will remember, Hatshepsut was the last of a line having purely royal blood in the House of Pharaoh. We can also be pretty sure that she was of the line of Shem. If you will also remember, the Bible narrative relates that the Egyptian pharaoh gave Joseph his wife. We also know that Joseph’s wife was of the House of Shem, for her father was a priest of On. On was called “Beth Shemesh”, meaning House of the people of Shem. Unless the pharaoh that gave Joseph his wife was also of the House of Shem, he wouldn’t have had the authority to do so. At this point, I will relate to you what one of my proofreaders pointed out in one of his letters to me on this subject:

“Concerning Beth-Shemesh, and we may have discussed this, and from your letters certainly you see it, but I am compelled to discuss it again here. ‘Shemesh’, I am convinced is surely a double-entendre. For the word means ‘sun’ in Hebrew, obvious from the Greek translation ‘Heliopolis’ which means ‘city (polis) of the sun (helios)’, but also, and just as well in palaeo Hebrew, means ‘people of Shem.’ For the people of Shem are the ‘light of the world’ (Matt. 5:14), and just like the ancient Pharaohs, Yahshua is represented as the source of light, Rev. 21:23; John 1:4-9; 8:12; Rev. 22:16.

“About this Greek word ἥλιος, helios, Strong’s 2246 ‘hay-lee-os’ which means ‘the sun’, I am certain it is simply a version of the following Hebrew words: 1966 heylel ‘hay-lale’ from 1984 ... the morning star:– lucifer. 1984 halal ‘haw-lal’ a primitive root ‘... to shine ...’ which of course gives us ‘halo’, ‘halogen’, etc.”

William Finck

Further from Watchman’s Teaching Letter #42 for October, 2001, I stated:

We should not be surprised that Thothmes I looked favorably on the priesthood of Heliopolis, for the Bible tells us that an earlier pharaoh had given Joseph his wife from there, Genesis 41:45. But, if you will remember, Thothmes III (Tuthmosis III) was not of pure royal blood. This is the same Tuthmosis III that Queen Hatshepsut prevented from gaining the throne for a number of years, after which he tried to destroy all memory of her. Here again, we see Genesis 3:15 at work between the true royal blood of the pharaohs of Egypt and the corrupted blood of the enemy gaining the throne. It is obvious, that if we can’t understand the Satanic seedline, we can understand neither Bible nor history.

Josephus, at Antiq. 2.9.5-6, 7 & 2.10.1-2, speaks of the pharaoh’s daughter that rescued Moses from the Nile as “Thermuthis”, which sounds much like the Thutmose family name. I should point out that when Old Testament names are transliterated from the Hebrew to the Greek, they become somewhat corrupted, and when transliterated again to another language, like English, they take on another slightly different pronunciation. For examples observe that Jeremiah is corrupted to “Jeremy”; Isaiah is corrupted to “Esaias”; and Yahshua is corrupted to “Jesus”. Many are not aware of it, but Christ and Joshua (6th book of the Old Testament) have the same name. But there was no “J” in the Hebrew or Greek, (nor in the English until the 1600s), so the name of Joshua would necessarily be pronounced with an “I” or “Y”, and articulated as Yahshua. Therefore, we should not be surprised at a difference between “Thermuthis” and “Thutmose”. And as I have demonstrated Thermuthis was surely of the Thutmose pharaoh line, although she was surely known as Hatshepsut to the Egyptians. But to identify her as such, we must understand that Thutmosis III was the half-breed pharaoh that didn’t know Joseph; the pharaoh inaugurating Israel’s oppression.

SUPPORT FOR MY RESEARCH ON EGYPT

Little did I know, about eight to ten years ago, when I was researching the history of Egypt, that anyone might come to similar conclusions as mine. To become familiar with Egyptian history, I proceeded to go to several used bookstores to find all the data I could get my hands on, plus buying many new books and publications. I went to Christian bookstores searching for whatever I could find at them. There was also a lady, when I told her the topic I needed data on, who would send me large packages of copied pages from some of her many books, and she even went to various libraries and copied pages from various books she could find on the subject there. She never liked her name or whereabouts known, so I can’t reveal who she was or where she lived, in order to give her credit for helping.

In all of my work on Egyptian history, I have never found anyone who has put the 18th Dynasty together the way I have in my back Watchman’s Teaching Letters, along with this paper; that is until today (June 29, 2010). I decided to search for some new data on Egypt that would support my premise, and I hit the jackpot. The reason that I hadn’t discovered this before is because I had acquired it since I did that research. I went to the Libronix Digital Library (which contains hundreds of Bibles, lexicons and commentaries) and typed “Thutmose” into the search. The very first book that came up was The Bible Knowledge Commentary by John F. Walvoord & Roy B. Zuck, and there were 21 hits to open, plus an additional 2 hits from an accompanying book entitled The Bible Reader’s Companion.

To my surprise Walvoord and Zuck were parallel to my findings about 90%, although they and I reached these conclusions independently. I would invite anyone to read their commentary on this subject from their Old Testament volume, pages 103-114, and compare their remarks with mine! Looking back, I am glad I didn’t have their input on this topic from the beginning of my endeavor, as it placed me in a position where I had to do my own research from a cold, empty-handed start the hard way! It is reassuring to me to find that someone else came to a comparable conclusion.

While my research agrees very well with Walvoord and Zuck, my reason for citing the 18th Egyptian dynasty was altogether different than theirs. Their reasoning follows archaeology and aligning chronologies, which is all well and good, and shows excellent scholarship. But the thing that caught my eye was how the Egyptians and Hurrians, along with the Hittites, fought in wars to a standstill, and how the Egyptians made peace treaties with them, and then for political reasons exchanged women for the other party’s harems. This brought Hittite and Hurrian [often errantly Hivite in Scripture] women into the pharaoh’s harem to mix the blood of Cain among the Egyptian rulers.

Here is how The Bible Knowledge Commentary by John F. Walvoord & Roy B. Zuck partially treat the history during the 18th Dynasty in their “Introduction”, pp. 106-107:

“... The history of Egypt near the time of the Exodus. Amenhotep I ruled in the newly centralized government from 1546 to 1526 (actually begun by his father Ahmose I) and was succeeded by Thutmose I (who ruled ca. 1526-1512). Moses was born (ca. 1526) in this king’s reign (or at the end of the reign of Amenhotep I). This king’s famous daughter, Hatshepsut, may have been the royal princess who discovered Moses along the Nile. When Thutmose II (1512-1504) died, Thutmose III was very young. So his stepmother, Hatshepsut, contrived to make herself ruler starting in 1503. (Thutmose III is considered king from 1504 to 1482 though Hatshepsut ‘co-reigned’ with him to 1482.)

“During Hatshepsut’s brilliant reign Egypt experienced prosperity. In these years Moses spent his youth in the royal court. After Hatshepsut’s death in 1428 Thutmose III ruled alone till 1450. Thutmose III liquidated the entire royal court and attempted to obliterate Hatshepsut’s name from monuments in the land. At that time Moses probably found the court of Egypt inhospitable and fled to Midian. Thutmose III became a powerful kingdom builder, extending his empire to include Syria.

“Thutmose III was succeeded by Amenhotep II (1450-1425), the Pharaoh of the Exodus (1446). Unlike his warring father, Amenhotep II seems to have suffered military reverses because he was not able to carry out extensive campaigns. His weak war efforts may have resulted from the loss of all or most of his chariots, in the waters of the Sea of Reeds. The so-called ‘Dream Stela’ of Thutmose IV records that the god Har-em-akht told the young prince in a dream that someday he would be king. If Thutmose IV had been the eldest son, proof of his throne-right would have been unnecessary. It is logical, therefore, to assume that he was a younger son, not the oldest son, of Amenhotep II. This accords with the statement in Exodus 12:29 that the eldest son of Pharaoh died the night of Israel’s first Passover. Thus Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the oppression and Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus ...”

In my own work, I had identified Thutmose III as the oppressor of Israel, but didn’t go into detail on who the pharaoh of the Exodus was. Inasmuch as Moses fled to Midian for forty years, Amenhotep II would seem to be reasonable as the pharaoh of the Exodus. As to the dates of Walvoord and Zuck, my own dates would be somewhat similar for the 18th dynasty, but I tried to follow the dates of The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt, pp. 133-134, which would place Amenhotep II at 1427-1392 B.C. But in quotations, I would use the dates cited by the author which varied notably.

While Ron Wyatt did correctly attempt to associate the Exodus with the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, he never once identified the behavior of each individual pharaoh as I have done in this paper, with the support of Walvoord and Zuck. Especially important is the fact that Wyatt didn’t understand the significance of the satanic-Hittite genetics corrupting the pharaoh’s bloodline. In short, Ron Wyatt didn’t teach the Two Seedline message of Genesis 3:15. His associate, Jonathan Gray, made it very clear that he only recognized the “seed of the woman” at Gen. 3:13 and tried to use that passage to support Ron Wyatt’s 24 chromosome theory of Christ’s genetics. This is pure blasphemy, claiming Yahshua, our Redeemer, was somewhat less than perfect, considering all His foreshadowing priests were genetically flawless! Thus, Ron Wyatt’s shenanigans have no place in Israel Identity, nor does Israel Identity have anything in common with Ron Wyatt and company!

This debate has come up around me several times this week, and I thought I'd share a few notes on the topic.

All definitions below are from either The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3^rd edition, or Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, or The New College Latin & English Dictionary, depending on the language of the word being defined. They are abridged, and some of my own comments are added.

Propitiate: to conciliate, appease.

Propitiation: The act of propitiating. Latin propitius, a disposition of favor (one can think pro-pity, a setting forth of pity or mercy). The Greek word translated propitiation in the New Testament is hilasmos, which is a means of appeasing, a conciliation.

To appease: to bring peace or calm, to satisfy or relieve.

To atone: to make amends or reparations for an injury or wrongdoing, to expiate.  

The only time we see the word "atonement" in the popular versions of the New Testament is at Romans 5:11, but the Greek word is katallasso, and it means reconciliation. It does not ever mean atonement, and it cannot mean atonement. Therefore, the word atonement does not appear in the New Testament, unless one is an advocate of "Church Greek", which is not the Greek of our Redeemer and His apostles who spoke and wrote Koine Greek.

Therefore the word atonement is not found in the New Testament. Christians confuse propitiation and atonement, however these are not the same, although the "Church Greek" devisors would like Christians to confuse them. The devisors of "Church Greek" want to confuse these terms, because they strive to eliminate the idea of Christ's propitiation as an act of conciliation between Israel and Yahweh our God, endeavouring to destroy the racial covenants between Israel and Yahweh. The matter of reconciliation stands in the way of the universalism of the "Church".

Christ is not our Atonement, He is our Propitiation, and there is a world of difference. We can never fully make our atonement, because we cannot ever repay Yahweh for our sins, national or personal. Yet under the New Covenant our reconciliation with Yahweh is effected upon our acceptance of the propitiation of Christ, but it was not done on the cross: He can be a propitiation for us, but He cannot make amends for us: our conciliation is achieved by our acceptance of His propitiation, if indeed He accepts us!

We all have some judaeo baggage to lose if we are ever going to come to a better knowledge of the truth.

 

Praise Yahweh!

William Finck

Christogenea.org

With this paper we cover another phase of the intrigues of Ron Wyatt and company. With this issue we will consider that the Exodus from Egypt by the Israelites involved travel by both land and water. In fact, had there not been a nautical route as well as a land route, the whole expedition could not have happened! To demonstrate this, I will quote chapter 2 entitled “The Nile Influence”, from the book On The Track Of The Exodus, by Charles C. Robertson, which I purchased from E. Raymond Capt’s Artisan Sales:

“The rise to power of the foremost kingdoms in early history, those of Egypt and Babylon, resulted from their similar control of a great river highway with its outlet to the sea. This is clearly expressed by F.J. Atkins’ How Europe Grew, as follows:

“‘Water is the great carrier. The river stream floats loads which could never in early days have been moved by land. The paths traced out through hills and mountain ranges by rivers and their tributaries are the easiest paths through these barren regions. With the importance of water thus well in mind we shall turn naturally to great watercourses as the seats and centres of our oldest and most stable civilizations; and of all the rivers of the earth, none springs more readily to our minds than that great river of North Africa, the Nile.’

“Commerce was then, as now, the main factor in national prosperity; and where trade was water-borne commerce flourished exceedingly. But the great river highways served more especially the purposes of national defence. By their means only could large forces be moved with rapidity over the whole extent of the kingdom, to meet attack at any threatened point.

“The rise to power of Egypt may be attributed to these two great sources of national prosperity, commerce and security, afforded by the Nile. But to further safeguard the kingdom, and to obtain access to the southern seas also for their commerce, a ship canal was constructed joining the Nile with the head of the Gulf of Suez.

“From the guide to Egyptian Collections in the British Museum (p. 386) – Necho (609-593 B.C.) – ‘He recut and enlarged the old canal which in the time of Seti I joined the Nile and the Red Sea.’

“The actual construction of the ship canal appears to have been one of the great works of the Old Kingdom.

“In Breasted’s Records of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2, p. 102, he deals with the voyage of Queen Hatshepsut from Thebes to Punt (c. 1494 B.C.) wherein the same ships which sailed from Thebes down the Nile appear also on the voyage down the Red Sea [by way of the Gulf of Suez]. Breasted infers the existence at this early period of the ship canal joining the Nile with the Gulf of Suez. [inside of brackets mine]

“In Egypt and Syria, by Sir J.W. Dawson C.M.G., LL.D. F.R.S., a clear appreciation may be gained of the value of Goshen to the Israelites: ‘The land of Goshen where Jacob and his sons settled extends eastwards from the Nile to the Red Sea [sic Sea of Reeds or Gulf of Suez]. One of the numerous branches into which the Nile divides in the Delta ran eastward along the Wady Tumilat [through Goshen].

“‘In this district the Israelites had not only a rich agricultural country but open pastures on either side and were in a position to control much of the trade and intercourse of Egypt with the East, and to act as carriers between the former and Palestine and Arabia.

“‘The recent surveys of the British Military Engineers also render it certain that this valley once carried a branch of the Nile, which discharged its waters into the Red Sea [sic Sea of Reeds or Gulf of Suez]. This branch, or a canal representing it, must have existed at the time of Moses.

“‘Goshen was separated to a great degree from the rest of Egypt, and was eminently suited to be the residence of a pastoral and agricultural people. At the date of the Exodus the Court of Pharaoh was in Zoan, or Tanis, about 30 miles north of Goshen.

“‘Moses and Aaron passed to and fro from Rameses to Zoan.

“‘It also seems certain that in the time of Moses a large volume of the Nile was, during the inundation, sent eastwards to the Red Sea [sic Sea of Reeds or Gulf of Suez].

“‘I attach much importance to the fact that the extensive deposits of Nile mud in the Wady Tumilat [through Goshen] prove the flow in ancient times of a considerable branch of the Nile eastward into the Red Sea [sic Sea of Reeds or Gulf of Suez]. This conclusion which I had reached independently from a study of the district my friends Col. Ardagh and Col. Scott Moncrieff, who are the best possible authorities, informed me they considered certain.

“‘But a very slight elevation or silting up of the Red Sea [sic Sea of Reeds or Gulf of Suez] would obstruct this arm of the Nile and impair the water communication, and the fertility of the district. Of such results we have no evidence till the reign of Seti I, some time before [sic after] the Exodus, when it became necessary to cut a canal through the Wady Tumilat, and this canal had to be reopened and extended to the southward by successive rulers down to the Roman period, as the difficulty of maintaining it increased.’

“By their settlement in Goshen, the Israelites had access to the Mediterranean Sea by the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, now nonexistent.

“According to Prince Omar Toussoum, who has made a study of the ancient branches of the Nile, the Pelusiac branch crossed the line of the Suez Canal about 12 miles north of Kantara. (Memoire sur les anciennes branches du Nil – époque ancienne – ch. iii and plate xi.)

“Through communication was thus possible between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, by means of the Wadi Tumilat Canal linking the Pelusiac Nile with the Gulf of Suez.

“The Israelites had every opportunity to develop a fishing fleet both in the Mediterranean and in the Gulf of Suez, of which the upper waters came within their territory. They were in a position to carry on overseas trade, north and south, to the full extent of what maritime enterprise they possessed [during their period of freedom in Egypt].

“Life on the Nile Delta meant for them a complete change from that of a nomadic people concerned mainly with flocks and herds. If the Israelites failed to become a great nation under such favourable conditions for expansion, the cause could not lie in any territorial disadvantage.”

The interesting part of this story is how the voyage of Queen Hatshepsut from Thebes to Punt circa 1494 B.C., where the same ships which sailed from Thebes down the Nile appear also on the voyage down the Red Sea to Punt. Punt was located on the east shore of the Red Sea about 400 miles south of where the Gulf of Suez joins the greater body of the Red Sea. If there were no canal at the time of Queen Hatshepsut’s voyage, she would have had to sail downstream on the Nile to the Mediterranean Sea, and then west to the present day Strait of Gibraltar; then turn south in the Atlantic Ocean to South Africa; around the Cape Of Good Hope; then northward up the east coast of Africa past present-day Somalia; enter the Gulf of Aden; enter the Red Sea and sail northward up to Punt. Either that, or she sailed on a magic carpet over the desert sands from Thebes to Punt. So, if it was a boat trip from Thebes to Punt, there must have been a canal! Inasmuch as the Nile is higher in elevation than sea level, it would be interesting to know how they controlled the flow of water in ancient days. When I was doing my research on Egypt, I remember reading about a canal, and there was some conjecture that it was built under the direction of Joseph, and even possibly named after him. I briefly mentioned that canal in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #33. I will continue later in Robertson’s book where he again comments on this theme, in chapter 15, entitled “Review From Tor” (a town on the east side of the Gulf of Suez where the Israelites probably crossed what was then known as the Sea of Reeds), pp. 78-79:

“Water is the great carrier.”

“The conduct of the Exodus from the land of Goshen north of the Gulf of Suez to the land of Midian north of the Gulf of Akaba (Aqaba) brings into prominence the fact that there is a perfectly good navigable waterway without interruption between Suez and Akaba. The distance by sea is 320 miles. By land, straight across the Sinai Peninsula, the distance is 200 miles.

“The problem of transport between Goshen and Midian may be considered apart from conditions of strategy. Let us suppose that no restrictions were imposed as to ‘the way of the land of the Philistines’ being barred; that there were [at that time] no Egyptians, Canaanites, nor Amalekites; and that Moses had nothing to consider beyond means of transport for the Israel migration from one country to the other.

“Having assembled the Israelites at the head of the Gulf of Suez, with the open choice of water or land transport for baggage and supplies, would Moses avail himself of the opportunity to make use of water as the great carrier? The alternative methods of transport were by camel, or wagon, and pack ass.

“Add to the Land Transport figures the extra transport for food for men and animals for a march of twenty days.”

Then Robertson used a chart created by Captain A.H.F. Young, R.N.R., comparing the various methods of transportation in ancient times, which I won’t reproduce here, but only show his results which are beyond criticism by any reasonable, thinking person:

“The table is explained as follows: one sailing barge, suitable for river and canal work, length 73 feet, breadth 14 feet (depth 9 feet), will carry 90 tons weight of goods by water. The land transport required for the same weight of goods is 360 camels, or 45 ox wagons, or 900 pack asses.

“One sea-going sailing barge, length 90 feet, breadth 22 feet (depth 9 feet), takes I80 tons burden; for which 720 camels, or 90 ox wagons, or 1,800 pack asses are required.

“This table of water transport was kindly supplied by Captain A.H.F. Young, R.N.R., and is of utmost value in demonstrating the astonishing advantage of water over land transport. Nothing can be more convincing to prove how water is the great carrier, and if any doubt still exists as to whether water or land transport for supplies was adopted for the Exodus, it must rest solely on absence of direct statement in the narrative. But – given a flotilla of ships and barges at the head of the Gulf of Suez – there could be no necessity for great convoys of supplies by land.

“And, if the route west of the Gulf of Suez is accepted, then such a flotilla was a necessary factor for the transport of the migration to the east side of the gulf at the Tor crossing.

“It is not too much to say that, with regard to the great number of three millions [of Israelites] under consideration, the transport of baggage and supplies would have been impossible had water transport not been available.

“In their eagerness to facilitate the departure of the Israelites, according to the narrative, the Egyptians would have [previously] placed all their available shipping at Moses’ disposal; to be ‘returned empty’ doubtless after the [sea route] disembarkation at Akaba.

“If passage is desired from Africa into Asia, this can only be effected by land across the line of the Suez Canal. If this is impracticable, then the sea must be crossed, either over the Gulf of Suez or the [greater body of the] Red Sea.

“The existence of shipping for the transport of the Israelite migration, though not apparent in the Bible narrative, was an absolute necessity and therefore an actual factor of the Exodus.

“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the conclusion is that Moses conducted the Exodus as a ‘land and sea’ operation; by taking advantage of the sea route, or the southern trade route, between Egypt and Midian.

“Of course, this is ‘not in the Bible.’ But why should it be? The transport of supplies and baggage was an auxiliary service, requiring no specific mention in the record of the migration.” The reader will notice that I have slightly edited Robertson in order for a better understanding of his narrative. While we may not agree entirely with Robertson, we have to give him credit for showing us the logistics of moving 2½ to 3 million people 400 miles just to get to the location for crossing the Sea of Reeds (the Gulf of Suez). No doubt the Migdol-Tor crossing was the intended crossing, even had the Egyptians not pursued them to force them to return to Goshen. Now the Israelites didn’t simply pack themselves a sandwich and a canteen of water and start marching off into the desert! Had they tried such a thing in our day, just think how many porta-johns they would have had to rent. Just consider what you might do if you were going to have 2½ to 3 million hungry mouths to feed three times a day for twenty days. Just sit down with pencil and paper and figure the grocery list you would have to shop for (and they didn’t have any grocery stores back then). And how many camp stoves one might need to cook that much food (and they didn’t have camp stoves back then). And while you are at it, figure how many camels, or ox wagons, or pack donkeys one might need to carry all of that food and water, plus the food and the water the animals would consume! Under these circumstances, wouldn’t you, if possible, try to ship most of this by water? If you agree, then you need one more thing; a waterway beside the road you are going to take. And it was there in the form of a canal, two lakes and the Gulf of Suez. If Queen Hatshepsut could use that waterway, so could Israel! And if Israel did go that route, it rules out Ron Wyatt’s Gulf of Aqaba hypothesis! Even at the Migdol-Tor crossing, Israel still had about 200 more miles to go! Not only that, but the proposed route by Wyatt would have left Israel out in the middle of the desert without anything to eat!

Now we shall investigate another serious problem with Ron Wyatt’s theory of Israel’s crossing the Gulf of Aqaba rather than the Gulf of Suez. I will cite pages 81-82 of Robertson’s book, chapter 16 entitled “From Tor To Akaba”:

“The conclusion arrived at in this chapter may be stated at once: ‘The Israel nation as a whole never penetrated the Sinai Peninsula’ [yet Ron Wyatt claims they did, C.A.E. ].

“Their next objective was to establish the base at the head of the Gulf of Akaba (Aqaba). The same procedure could have been observed had the country been open; the marching columns, pack and wheel transport, with the flocks and herds by land; the supplies flotilla by sea. But it can be confidently stated on the authority of the Director of Desert Surveys that the movement of large columns over the Southern Sinai country is impracticable. The case against the multitude of the children of Israel crossing Sinai could not be better stated than in Doughty, Arabia Deserta, p. 61: ‘The breadth of our slow marching motley lines, in the plains might be an hundred paces. What may we think of the caravan of Moses? if we should reckon all Israel at 2,500,000 souls and four camels abreast, which, according to my observation, is more than might commonly pass in the strait valleys of Sinai encumbered with fallen quarters of rocks. The convoy of Israel should be four hundred times this Haj train, or more than two hundred leagues long; and from the pillar of cloud or fire to the last footman of Jacob would be more journeys than days in the longest month of the year.’

“From Mr. Murray’s personal knowledge of every route, track and pass over the Sinai Peninsula there is only one practicable route for a cross-country march from Tor to Akaba; and this route, though possible for a marching column with the flocks and herds, would be difficult; and the movement of the whole Israel nation, with ox carts for the women and children, and vast supplies of food over this route an absolute impossibility.

“The only route considered passable leads from Tor by the plain El Gaa into the Wadi Feiran; and thence by the Wadi es Sheikh over a low pass into the El Hezin country, where the Wadi Zelega affords a route to the coast a few miles below the head of the Gulf of Akaba.

“On the western coast of the Gulf of Akaba the mountains come down abruptly to the sea. There is no shore road. An examination of naval charts shows no submerged shore line similar to that of the Gulf of Suez. The Israel migration as a whole could neither have traversed the Sinai Peninsula, nor could they have followed a coastal route.

“It becomes apparent that the second stage of the migration, from Tor to Akaba, was effected mainly by sea transport. Half the shipping required for supplies was now empty, and available for transport of personnel and vehicles. The voyage onward to Akaba could be completed by relays. The landward march formed a convoy for the flocks and herds by the route indicated.

“We have to follow the narrative as best we may, and it must be borne in mind that the records are very ancient; they are not an absolutely connected statement; the text is sometimes interrupted and resumed later after a digression on a totally different subject. Throughout Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy these difficulties occur and the student may well feel baffled at times in trying to make any sequence of events. Bits of history are mixed up with law and ceremony, which may give place for no obvious reason to a genealogical table. Repetitions of the same event are presented apparently by different writers. The whole construction is dealt with in Literature of the Bible, by Driver:

“Num. 33 gives an itinerary of marches which agrees generally but not exactly with the rest of the text.

“In certain passages a change of meaning has resulted from translation, and some Hebrew words or expressions lose their value entirely if rendered exactly into English. The expression, for instance, ‘three score and ten palm trees’ in Ex. 15:27, denotes a vast number, not the figure 70. In the same verse, ‘twelve wells of water’ is unfortunate. ‘Wells’ should be ‘springs,’ indicative of running water; and therefore of water courses. The passage denotes a well-watered and thickly wooded country.

“If the Bible is read with the exact text, word for word insisted on, there is a loss in value. One commentator, writing on some spot in the desert he thinks must be Elim (Ex. 15:27), says: ‘There are only nine wells left, the others being filled up with drifts of sand. But the seventy palm trees have become a thousand.’ And what use would twelve wells be to the thousands of Israelites and great herds of cattle? ...”

The main paragraph to be noted from this last quotation is: “On the western coast of the Gulf of Akaba the mountains come down abruptly to the sea. There is no shore road. An examination of naval charts shows no submerged shore line similar to that of the Gulf of Suez. The Israel migration as a whole could neither have traversed the Sinai Peninsula, nor could they have followed a coastal route” [contrary to Ron Wyatt].

What is important for the reader to comprehend is the fact that had Israel taken the route proposed by Ron Wyatt of crossing the Gulf of Aqaba rather than the Gulf of Suez, when they supposedly would have arrived at the western shoreline, they would have had to be prepared immediately to climb mountains. Can anyone really believe that 2½ to 3 million Israelites, with all of their animals, could do such a thing? It is true that just a few short miles over those mountains to the east was the land of Midian, but the way the Israelites got there was by going around the northern apex of the Gulf of Aqaba rather than through it.

Sure, there might be roads there today, but in Moses’ time, they had no explosives to blast their way through the mountains! Not only that, but the chariots of that day could not maneuver over mountains, or even rough, rocky surfaces on the level!