Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ark of the Covenant
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 74 (372778)
12-29-2006 1:34 PM


I'm sure that most of us have even a nominal familiarity with the Ark of the Covenant. For those that do not, I'll provide a brief synopsis.
The Ark of the Covenant is something like a chest completely inlaid with pure gold. The design was specific; asked of Moses by God to build it from Acacia wood and to exact measurements. On the top was to rest to Cherubim situated in a manner as if to be covering Holy God with their wings. Inside was the real treasure, as the Ark is really just a container for the Ten Commandments, which are said to have been penned by the finger of Almighty God.
This event began in Mt. Sinai, Egypt. After here, the Ark was transported through the tabernacle only by Levitical priests. The Ark made its way from Mt. Sinai to Jerusalem under the directorate of King David. Its eventually placed in Solomon's temple, inside the tabernacle, covered in the veiled room, the Holy of Holies.
However, from about the time of 1000 BC, it disappears and is not mentioned in the texts that were to follow. Interestingly, the Babylonians invaded during that time and were reputed to have plundered Israel completely. It was assumed that the Babylonians had taken the Ark. But if they had it, then why is it still missing today?
Another theory had surfaced. It was reported by some that the Israelites caught wind of the impending invasion and took the Ark deep into Hezekiah's tunnel-- a subterranean cavern that exists even to this day. But even if it was taken through the tunnel to safety, where did it go to? Where is it today?
The story states that the Queen of Sheba had heard of Solomon's wisdom and visited him in Jerusalem. This meeting is recorded in the Bible. However, after this time, the legend begins that Sheba and Solomon conceived a child named, Menelik, who was born in Jerusalem. After this time, Sheba and Menelik are said to have gone back to Ethiopia (named Ophir in Biblical days).
Once Menelik had come of age, the legend states that he returned to Israel to see his father Solomon. His father is said to have known that danger approached and so he had entrusted his son to take the Ark to safety in Ophir. From here it is said to have resided in Debra Domo, which is the largest repository of Christian and Judaic manuscripts on the continent of Africa today.
According to oral tradition, that was later annotated in the Kebra Nagast, the Ark was said to have been transported to the island of Tana Kirkos, which is the plot of land seen in this image surrounded by Lake Tana. The island was said to have been selected for its optimal safety. The island itself doubles as a fortress because its formed in the shape of a mesa with a very steep rockface on all sides. The mesa allows for high visibility where the monks can see well in advance any raiders coming into the area and can implement their contingency plans accordingly.
What lends credence to the theory is that to this day, numerous relics from Judaic and early Christian artifacts from exist today under the care of the monks inhabiting the island. There is also socket holes in the ground where the Ark was said to have rested. The socket holes are reputed to have held up the Holy of Holies. The spacing between the socket holes is an exact measurement according to the strict standards provided by the Bible, which is 15 x 15.
As well, they have in their possession something known as a "gomer," which is an all bronze basin used to collect the blood of sacrificed animals in Judaism. What's interesting about this is that Judaism has ceased animal sacrifice for over 2,000 years. How would a group of Ethiopians have an authenticated piece of antiquity, such as a gomer, unless it really was brought to them by Levitical priests on an odyssey to save the Ark?
This is where it is said to have resided for hundreds of years. However, during the 4th century AD, while Christianity was spreading through Africa, it was said to have been moved yet again under the directive of King Azana of Ethiopia to Akksum, Ethiopia. This is supposedly the final resting place of the Ark to this very day.
It is reported that it is housed at St. Mary's of Zion church. This church inside a gated community with armed guards. Inside this gated city resides the church which is surrounded by wrought iron bars. The Guardian of the Ark is the only human being allowed to ever see the Ark. His life is completely devoted to its care and he never leaves the premise for any reason. Since he was called to duty, he has never set foot anywhere else but within the confines of the church grounds. He was selected because he is said to come from a Levitcal line of priests. When he dies, a worthy member of the same line will do as he does, just like those who have gone before him.
What are your thoughts on this? Does the actual Ark of the Covenant reside in Akksum, Ethiopia to this day? Do they only think they have the actual Ark or is it the real deal? Did such an Ark ever really exist? If so, did God make it disappear so as to not be worshipped as God Himself? What are your thoughts?

"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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 12-29-2006 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2006 7:04 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 12-30-2006 3:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 21 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 12-30-2006 5:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 65 by Peal, posted 01-03-2007 4:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 74 (372783)
12-29-2006 1:57 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 3 of 74 (372789)
12-29-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2006 1:34 PM


The Ark made its way from Mt. Sinai to Jerusalem under the directorate of King David.
Surely this is incorrect NJ?
However, from about the time of 1000 BC, it disappears and is not mentioned in the texts that were to follow. Interestingly, the Babylonians invaded during that time and were reputed to have plundered Israel completely.
You may wish to check this out too! The Babylonians plundered Israel about 586 BCE.
It is likely that the Ark was housed in the Temple unitl it was destroyed by the babylonians. However, keep in mind that there is no external evidence for the existence of the Ark, and there's also no archaeological evidence of Solomon's temple either.
You may wish to check out Ron wyatt's site, he claims to have seen the Ark and photographed it, but the pictures didn't develop properly!
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 1:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 2:47 PM Brian has replied
 Message 16 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-30-2006 2:14 PM Brian has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 74 (372791)
12-29-2006 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
12-29-2006 2:31 PM


quote:
The Ark made its way from Mt. Sinai to Jerusalem under the directorate of King David.
Surely this is incorrect NJ?
Why is that incorrect? Or should I say, "what" about the statement is incorrect?
"After David had constructed buildings for himself in the City of David, he prepared a place for the ark of God and pitched a tent for it. Then David said, "No one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, because the LORD chose them to carry the ark of the LORD and to minister before him forever."
David assembled all Israel in Jerusalem to bring up the ark of the LORD to the place he had prepared for it. He called together the descendants of Aaron and the Levites"
-1st Chronicles 15:1-4
You may wish to check this out too! The Babylonians plundered Israel about 586 BCE.
Yes, the Babylonians invaded in during this time and returned the plundered items in 538 BC. What did I say contrary to this? I actually didn't even mention the time frame when the Babylonians invaded. The only number I proved was that when David brought the Ark to Jerusalem. After that time, there was no mention of it for about 450 years. It was presumed that the Babylonians must have taken it. But when they brought back the relics 538 BC, the Ark was not among the plundered items. The question is did they take it and keep it? Or was the Ark clandestinely moved before this time and unrecorded to keep its whereabouts safe?
It is likely that the Ark was housed in the Temple unitl it was destroyed by the babylonians. However, keep in mind that there is no external evidence for the existence of the Ark, and there's also no archaeological evidence of Solomon's temple either.
I would agree that no external evidence exists about the Ark. As far as the Temple is concerned, are you referring to the first temple, the second, or both?
You may wish to check out Ron wyatt's site, he claims to have seen the Ark and photographed it, but the pictures didn't develop properly!
No, that's alright. I'm well aware who Ron Wyatt is. He and I don't see eye to eye.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 12-29-2006 2:31 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 12-29-2006 3:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 74 (372800)
12-29-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2006 2:47 PM


Why is that incorrect? Or should I say, "what" about the statement is incorrect?
It made the journey from Sinai under Moses.
David brought it from Kiriath-jearim.
David wasn't born when the Ark left Sinai 450 years or so earlier.
Yes, the Babylonians invaded in during this time and returned the plundered items in 538 BC. What did I say contrary to this?
M\ybe I read it wrong but it looks like you said it was about 1000BCE.
However, from about the time of 1000 BC, it disappears and is not mentioned in the texts that were to follow. Interestingly, the Babylonians invaded during that time and were reputed to have plundered Israel completely.
I thought during that time was related to the time you gave?
Also I was talking about Solomon's Temple, the one it was housed in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 2:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 4:50 PM Brian has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 74 (372814)
12-29-2006 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
12-29-2006 3:38 PM


The first Temple
It made the journey from Sinai under Moses.
David brought it from Kiriath-jearim.
David wasn't born when the Ark left Sinai 450 years or so earlier.
This is true. I just meant that it was David that ordered it to Jerusalem.
quote:
Yes, the Babylonians invaded in during this time and returned the plundered items in 538 BC. What did I say contrary to this?
M\ybe I read it wrong but it looks like you said it was about 1000BCE.
quote:
However, from about the time of 1000 BC, it disappears and is not mentioned in the texts that were to follow. Interestingly, the Babylonians invaded during that time and were reputed to have plundered Israel completely.
I thought during that time was related to the time you gave?
After reading a second time, I can see where the confusion was. The problem was in my wording. My apologies. I should probably change that.
Also I was talking about Solomon's Temple, the one it was housed in.
As far as physical evidence of the first temple, I don't know if any exist. However, the Bible makes it clear that Phoenicians were employed to help with the architecture and construction of the Temple. To give the Temple more credence, there is an extra-biblical account inscribed on the Moabite Stone.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 12-29-2006 3:38 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ReverendDG, posted 12-29-2006 5:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 12-30-2006 5:49 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 7 of 74 (372826)
12-29-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2006 4:50 PM


Re: The first Temple
As far as physical evidence of the first temple, I don't know if any exist. However, the Bible makes it clear that Phoenicians were employed to help with the architecture and construction of the Temple. To give the Temple more credence, there is an extra-biblical account inscribed on the Moabite Stone.
where does it talk about the ark in the stone though, i read the wiki entry and it only talks about the stone being made by mesha, omri being a real person and the controversal claims about the stone speaking of the house of david
where does it speak about the temple, it says the vessels of yahweh, but it may mean the cerimonal items they plundered, nothing on the temple though
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 4:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 9:23 PM ReverendDG has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 74 (372857)
12-29-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ReverendDG
12-29-2006 5:32 PM


Re: The first Temple
where does it talk about the ark in the stone though
It doesn't. We were getting off track. Brian said that neither the ark or the first Temple have any credibility as to their existence, which prompted me to post information on the Moabite Stone.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ReverendDG, posted 12-29-2006 5:32 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ReverendDG, posted 12-29-2006 11:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 9 of 74 (372897)
12-29-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2006 9:23 PM


Re: The first Temple
fine then where does it speak of the temple? i'm asking because everything i read about it makes your point of posting the link irrelevent to brians question

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 9:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2006 12:11 PM ReverendDG has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 10 of 74 (372941)
12-30-2006 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2006 4:50 PM


Re: The first Temple
Hi,
I am very familiar with the Mesha Stele and I don't see any mention of any Temple in it.
Just because there's no extant evidence for the Temple or the Ark doesn't mean that they didn't exist, just that we don't have any physical evidence for them.
Personally, regarding the Ark, I don't believe there was such a thing because of the wealth of contrary archaeological evidence to the events that the Ark was supposed to have been present in, add in the obvious fictional tales (such as the impossible figure of 50,070 that God murdered because they saw the Ark)and I would conclude that certainly the references to the Ark's early days are untrue.
It may well be that the Ark was constructed early in the period where Israel emerged from within Palestine, and could well be around 1000 BCE as there is evidence of a central polity arising then, after this the early tales could have been invented about the history of the Ark.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 4:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2006 12:25 PM Brian has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 74 (372945)
12-30-2006 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2006 1:34 PM


Interestingly, the Babylonians invaded during that time and were reputed to have plundered Israel completely. It was assumed that the Babylonians had taken the Ark. But if they had it, then why is it still missing today?
If anyone had it, why is it still missing today?
Most likely, the Babylonians stripped the gold off and left the wood in their general plunder. The Ark may have been very holy to the Jews, but to the Babylonians it would have been just so much valuable scrap metal wrapped around an inconveniently bulky wooden thing.
As well, they have in their possession something known as a "gomer," which is an all bronze basin used to collect the blood of sacrificed animals in Judaism. What's interesting about this is that Judaism has ceased animal sacrifice for over 2,000 years. How would a group of Ethiopians have an authenticated piece of antiquity, such as a gomer, unless it really was brought to them by Levitical priests on an odyssey to save the Ark?
But why should they have been "on a mission to save the Ark" particularly?
Does the actual Ark of the Covenant reside in Akksum, Ethiopia to this day?
Wouldn't it be nice if they'd let archaeologists see it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 1:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2006 12:53 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 12 of 74 (372956)
12-30-2006 8:45 AM


I'd like to see the True Ark found just to be able to see Judge Roy Moore's reaction when he found out that the Ten Commandments really are the ones with "don't seethe a kid in its mother's milk."

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 74 (372993)
12-30-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ReverendDG
12-29-2006 11:56 PM


Re: The first Temple
fine then where does it speak of the temple? i'm asking because everything i read about it makes your point of posting the link irrelevent to brians question
Because it mentions by name "The House of David," that could have any number of meanings assigned to it. That could mean the Temple, that could mean Jerusalem, or that could mean any member of devout Jews, or could mean Israelites as a whole. After a more careful review, I doubt highly that it is referring to the Temple, but rather, about Jewish brotherhood. For instance, "the House of Togarmah," just means, "Armenians." Its an ancient way of speaking about where one lives in relation to a famous ruler of that land named in their honor.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ReverendDG, posted 12-29-2006 11:56 PM ReverendDG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brian, posted 12-31-2006 6:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 74 (372996)
12-30-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brian
12-30-2006 5:49 AM


Re: The first Temple
Personally, regarding the Ark, I don't believe there was such a thing because of the wealth of contrary archaeological evidence
Such as?
to the events that the Ark was supposed to have been present in, add in the obvious fictional tales (such as the impossible figure of 50,070 that God murdered because they saw the Ark)and I would conclude that certainly the references to the Ark's early days are untrue.
Why would that be obviously untrue? People once thought that the earth was obviously flat.
It may well be that the Ark was constructed early in the period where Israel emerged from within Palestine, and could well be around 1000 BCE as there is evidence of a central polity arising then, after this the early tales could have been invented about the history of the Ark.
That's certainly a possibility. But have you ever noticed that detractors of the Bible claim that everything is a tale? Or if it isn't entirely a tale, its greatly embellished? That's a whole lot of tales? One would reason that out of so many tales coming from the same region, that at least a few of them are actually true.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 12-30-2006 5:49 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 12-30-2006 4:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 20 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 4:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 74 (373014)
12-30-2006 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
12-30-2006 7:04 AM


The Ark
If anyone had it, why is it still missing today?
In my post I went over one possible scenario that may or may not be true. The common theory is that it currently resides in Akksum, Ethipopia.
Most likely, the Babylonians stripped the gold off and left the wood in their general plunder. The Ark may have been very holy to the Jews, but to the Babylonians it would have been just so much valuable scrap metal wrapped around an inconveniently bulky wooden thing.
This is certainly a possibility for an unbeliever. For some believers, that's not possible because to be unholy and gaze upon the ark means that you will die instantly out of sheer irreverence.
But why should they have been "on a mission to save the Ark" particularly?
Because Israel is a hostile place and the levitical priests, according to extra-biblical sources, grew weary with the impending danger surrounding Israel and decided to take the Ark and the single most holy relic, the 10 Commandments, to a safe haven in Ophir.
Wouldn't it be nice if they'd let archaeologists see it?
Yes, that would be great, except, there is some uncertainty as to what would happen to them if it really were the Ark. Would they die? Even if they didn't die, how would they conclude that it was actually the Ark and not a replica? Even dating the object gives no guarantee that it is the actual Ark. Which means that it still boils down to belief.
There is another theory. Since the Ark is the representation of the Mashiac, the Ark no longer serves its function a temporary glory for God. Like Moses' body, it is theorized that God compelled the Ark to be forever lost, so that people would not worship the Ark itself, but remember that they were representations of God. Now that we are called to worship Jesus in spirit, the physical representations have fulfilled its purpose and we are under no obligatory compulsion to honor it beyond its current worth.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2006 7:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024