Ark of the Covenant

quote:

---

I'm making a declaration that the Bible has stood up to scrutiny. If you want to challenge that as it relates to the Ark, by all means discuss it here, as its the appropriate thread. If you want to contest the bible in any other capacity, then open a new thread.

---

According to the rules of this forum you are meant to support your assertions. Since you seem insistent on only discussing the Ark of the Covenant in this thread then I must ask which of the Bibles claims about the Ark have actually been verified by independant evidence ?

the 1812 overture is about napoleon invading russia. it has nothing to do with the american war of 1812. well, yes. it was important to us. the authors of the bible wrote about what was important to them: israel and judah. tchaikovsky wrote about what was important to him: russia.

---

Exactly. For most of the world, the War of 1812 is about the Napoleonic Conflicts and the American War of 1812 is but a minor incident.The existence of Judah and Israel as "Kingdoms" was important to the folk of Judah and Israel, and so they wrote about those events.The Bible though is a compilation of both traditions, with no clear delineation of either the POV of the authors or the source of the traditions. Those are things we must try to resolve through examining the different tales by looking at style, content, actual physical evidence and other peoples traditions.I do not doubt the possible existence of the Ark of the Covenant. However I strongly suspect that the stories of it as well as its history have been greatly exaggerated.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes Night, I'm game. Write it up and we'll go form there.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

If you had said something to the affect of, "I know the Ark of the Covenant isn't real, just like ID isn't real," Should I take that as an invitation that we should now start talking about ID in detail? Obviously not. Me saying that the Bible stands up to scrutiny is simply telling you what I believe from experience. I'm simply telling you my opinion on the matter, not leading you into a huge discourse on the Flood.And you being such an advocate for staying on topic should know the difference. If you want to discuss in detail the historical value of the Bible, write a new thread and we can tackle those specific issues in there. I will be more than happy to discuss it. But in this thread is not the place.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

A vague description? It gives you the precise measurements and the materials used. How much more detailed do you want it? Okay, this is all well, and good, and proper, however, how would you know that it was the actual Ark and not a replica? Even if it dated to the time of Moses, controversy would still surround it, don't you think? But it would at least be a start, I certainly agree. My point is, doesn't all of this ultimately come down to faith? For every million and one reasons that we could assume it to be the real Ark, there is probably 2 million and one reasons to assume that it isn't. We still might run into the same snags. And even if they concluded that Commandments and Ark were real, they'd then might say, "Yeah, but who cares? It didn't come from God and that's what really matters." The point is, it will never end until God ends it once for all. I agree fully. Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. They may believe they have the actual Ark and are totally incorrect. What I mean to say is, something of great value is there. And it piques my interest in knowing what exactly they have. I was inclined to believe that God has purposely removed the Ark from existence, kind of like the body of Moses, so that no one will covet it. It served its function and revealed the glory for that season, but when Jesus fulfilled His purpose, the Ark no longer is representative of Jesus, since Jesus came onto the scene. But I suppose it is possible that they have the Ark. I don't know either way.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Okay, I am clueless why you might think that but if it makes you feel good, fine. They may of may not actually have something. They believe it of value. Beyond that I don't see how anything can be said, certainly not What I mean to say is, something of great value is there. Well, an actual clue what it looked like might help. We have only the vaguest of descriptions of what the sucker looked like. here is one rendition and here is another and yet another can be seen on this page.Honestly, we have no idea of what the sucker looked like.The point is that regardless, there is NO way to prove the existence of "The Ark of the Covenant" and in particularly, no way to prove any supernatural aspects.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Don't be too hard on yourself. What would compel men throughout generations to never leave the confines of the Church property for their entire lives if they didn't at least believe they had the Ark? Something is keeping them their in full devotion. I'm not talking about merely the Ethiopians because even they have never seen it. I'm mostly referring to the Guardian monks. Again, I'm seeing how this is vague. I don't see how any more specific it could get."Have them make a chest of acacia wood”two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other.

​

Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the chest to carry it. The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. Then put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you.

​

Make an atonement cover of pure gold”two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you. There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites." -Exodus 25:10-22 Those computer generated images don't take away from the fact that exact measurements and detailed descriptions were provided in Exodus. Any skilled craftsman could build an exact replica based on the measurements. The only thing they may not have an abundance of is the gold to inlay it. I agree for the most part concerning the proof that it is the actual Ark, which is why I stated that at some level its going to come down to faith. About the supernatural part, I'm not so sure much faith would be needed. If people began to enter the Holy of Holies and started dying left and right, it might change quite a few people's minds.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Their belief? A Paycheck? people devote their whole lives to nonsense all the time. Look at Jonestown or Heavens Gate. I'm sorry but that is simply bullshit.If you think that what you quoted is an accurate description then thank GOD you are not working in a job where descriptions are important and may I never get you as a juror in a trial.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Many critics of the bible often don't have a good grasp on it in order to speak authoritatively on the matter.

---

I don't know about all that. Certainly I have met some atheists that are well versed in the Bible, but from my experience its the exception, not the rule. Their sects prooftexts? I don't know what this means. Can you clarify for me? That doesn't mean very much. I mean, I've probably read Nahum three times and can't remember off hand what its directly about. Nahum is a minor prophet and its a rather short book. I also know that his prophecies pretty much only deal with Israel and contain no messianic prophecy, kind of like Jonah. I wouldn't say that they don't know the Bible if they don't remember what this particular book entails. I would, however, say that they don't know it very well if they at least didn't know such a book exists.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

But compare with Buz saw in his new prophecy thread. It's pretty obvious that Buz has got no idea of what Daniel or Nahum are about, even though he's quoting them. I can put a whole list of other mistakes he's made in the past, too. And he boasts abut how he's studied the Bible for decades ! Never mind all the misinformation going around fundamentalists circles like the idea that Luke's genealogy of Jesus is really Mary's - an idea with no foundation in the text of Luke whatsoever.

Hi, Jugs, wait till we see if we get interest from the likes of Brian, TL, Iasion, Jar, PaulK and similar musty tome-probers.:-pEdited by Nighttrain, : included another name

Yes, you are making an unsupported declaration, which is meaningless. Jar was pointing out that the Bible hasn’t stood up to scrutiny, and is totally relevant to this discussion as you are using the accuracy of the history in the Bible as an argument to support the likely existence of the Ark. I didn’t say on this thread.But when you trotted out this same unsupported statement in another thread I responded and demonstrated that your claim is BS.Arguments such as “There is no question as to whether or not David was an actual figure in human history ”, or “They don't have anachronisms or even hints of such. , do demonstrate a lack of research on your part. So I Imagine that Jar 9and myself) see it as our duty to objective research to point out that your persistent claim of historical accuracy for the Bible is simply your opinion and is not based on any research.I am still awaiting a reply that would give your opinion about the accuracy of the Bible a little bit of credibility.Now, when someone doesn’t reply to a message it could be that they admit that they don’t have any answers, or it could be that they just haven’t got around to constructing a reply yet, or maybe they cannot be arsed replying. But, regardless of what the reason is it seems weird to keep using the same argument when it has been pointed out to you how inaccurate the Bible is! You'd be better going to a decent library and turning some pages.Brian.

let's imagine for a moment that Moses was a real person, what date is 'the time of Moses'?When was Moses supposed to have lived? Even when the Bible tells you that Jeremiah hid the Ark in a cave:2 maccabees 1-8 1: One finds in the records that Jeremiah the prophet ordered those who were being deported to take some of the fire, as has been told,
2: and that the prophet after giving them the law instructed those who were being deported not to forget the commandments of the Lord, nor to be led astray in their thoughts upon seeing the gold and silver statues and their adornment.
3: And with other similar words he exhorted them that the law should not depart from their hearts.
4: It was also in the writing that the prophet, having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God.
5: And Jeremiah came and found a cave, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the entrance.
6: Some of those who followed him came up to mark the way, but could not find it.
7: When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: "The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy.
8: And then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated." Apparently it is going to remain hidden until old yahweh gathers His people together.God told ron Wyatt that He would allow Ron to show the Ark to the world when the time was right. it is difficult to see ron having that honour now.Brian.

Ron made the mistake of just using 200 ASA Polaroid film instead of the Angelic 666 ASA film.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion