Ark of the Covenant
- Thread starter hffan2000
- Start date
Doc Savage
New member
Wholeheartedly.
indyt
Active member
When the ark was carried around by the Hebrews there was several items in it. The Ten Commandments, a gold jar of manna and Aaron's staff that budded, (almonds), Hebrews 9:4. The story of why Aaron's staff had budded is found in Numbers 16 and 17 which deals with Korahs rebellion against Moses, awesome story. Its neat, I just got through reading "Indiana Jones and the Secret of the Sphinx" and it deals with Aaron's staff. As far as the location of the ark I believe it is in a church in Ethiopia or in a hidden cave in Israel hidden by Jeremiah before the Babylonians captured the Southern kingdom (Judah).
Hope this helps.
I know the Ark has not been destroyed because the book of Revelation talks about it in the future.
Hope this helps.
I know the Ark has not been destroyed because the book of Revelation talks about it in the future.
Tennessee R
New member
indyt said:When the ark was carried around by the Hebrews there was several items in it. The Ten Commandments, a gold jar of manna and Aaron's staff that budded, (almonds), Hebrews 9:4. The story of why Aaron's staff had budded is found in Numbers 16 and 17 which deals with Korahs rebellion against Moses, awesome story. Its neat, I just got through reading "Indiana Jones and the Secret of the Sphinx" and it deals with Aaron's staff. As far as the location of the ark I believe it is in a church in Ethiopia or in a hidden cave in Israel hidden by Jeremiah before the Babylonians captured the Southern kingdom (Judah).
Hope this helps.
Very very good, indyt!
This is true.
At one point, it seems that the rod that budded was removed from the Ark.
Meaning that that would probably be located elsewhere, if it still survives.
After the Bablyonian Seige, the Ark is missing. Ron Wyatt believed that Jeremiah had hidden the Ark so that it would not be captured (Through a cave system that is documented throughout underground Mt. Moriah). I have been in those caves, and will be going back in the Summer, to do an excavation where Ron Wyatt said he thought it was located.
indyt
Active member
Tennessee R said:
Thanks Tennessee. Some believe that the ark was in a cave under the site where Christ was crucified. After the death of Christ the earthquake sent a crack through the rock to where the ark was hidden. Christs blood ran through the crack and onto the ark. Symbolizing the ultimate atonement and fulfillment of the Israelite rituals of placing blood on the mercy seat at Pentecost,(sorry for the long sentence.). I recommend "The Ark of the Covenant" by Bob Cornuke, if you have not already read it. He is a Christian adventurer and police invesitgator. He believes the ark is in Ethiopia as a result of King Solomon and the queen of Sheba and their son Menelik. The ruins of the queen's palace are in Ethiopia some believe. Very interesting. I also am a fan of biblical archaeology but have not had the opportunity to go on an expedition. May the Lord be with you on your next adventure and I hope it is productive!!
As far as I know, there are Ark celebrations in Ethiopia every year. There, every church brings out the Ark. (well, not out because, actually, people don't see them for they are kept from unworthy or something...) I can't remember the details but the point is that EVERY church (I mean the buildings, just for understanding) believes, they possess the TRUE Ark.
Well, what if The Ark really is located somwhere in Ethiopia? (It was a little shock for me to know that there was and is such strong christian faith in Africa and that christianity wasn't brought there by colonists rather than by merchants from the Holy Land. But it makes obvious that the Three Kings from Africa came to bow before little Jesus.)
I hope the English wasn't too bad. I was doing my best.
Well, what if The Ark really is located somwhere in Ethiopia? (It was a little shock for me to know that there was and is such strong christian faith in Africa and that christianity wasn't brought there by colonists rather than by merchants from the Holy Land. But it makes obvious that the Three Kings from Africa came to bow before little Jesus.)
I hope the English wasn't too bad. I was doing my best.
roundshort
Active member
If the Ethopians would sell "this ark" maybe they could buy some food or at least bug spray! I am sure that would be better for them! They beat the crap out of Italy before WWII, though!IkoJones said:As far as I know, there are Ark celebrations in Ethiopia every year. There, every church brings out the Ark. (well, not out because, actually, people don't see them for they are kept from unworthy or something...) I can't remember the details but the point is that EVERY church (I mean the buildings, just for understanding) believes, they possess the TRUE Ark.
Well, what if The Ark really is located somwhere in Ethiopia? (It was a little shock for me to know that there was and is such strong christian faith in Africa and that christianity wasn't brought there by colonists rather than by merchants from the Holy Land. But it makes obvious that the Three Kings from Africa came to bow before little Jesus.)
I hope the English wasn't too bad. I was doing my best.
Johan
Active member
Actually it will likely be brought out from Etheopia when Jesus returns to Jerusalem to serve as his literal throne. The top of the ark is called the "mercy seat" I believe it is a literal seat. Why I think this:
Isa 18:7 In that time shall a present be brought unto Jehovah of hosts from a people tall and smooth, even from a people terrible from their beginning onward, a nation that meteth out and treadeth down, whose land the rivers divide, to the place of the name of Jehovah of hosts, the mount Zion.
"People tall and smooth" refer to the people from Ethiopia in scripture as well as "land the rivers divide".
The only physical gift worth to be brought into mount Zion in the throne room would be the Ark of The covenant.
Isa 18:7 In that time shall a present be brought unto Jehovah of hosts from a people tall and smooth, even from a people terrible from their beginning onward, a nation that meteth out and treadeth down, whose land the rivers divide, to the place of the name of Jehovah of hosts, the mount Zion.
"People tall and smooth" refer to the people from Ethiopia in scripture as well as "land the rivers divide".
The only physical gift worth to be brought into mount Zion in the throne room would be the Ark of The covenant.
Doc Savage
New member
temple of john said:So...Indy must stop the Russians from taking over the world with a staff the spouts.........................almonds?
Sounds deadly.
lol...but bear in mind, this staff was present at the unleashing of the Ten Plagues.
Doc Savage said:
not another mummy rip-off.
Doc Savage
New member
Pale Horse said:
No, I'm sure Imhotep likes almonds.
Tennessee R
New member
I was reading through some ancient threads, This last issue on identity theft was never clarified. Looking back in retrospect, maybe you can answer me now, apalehorse.
I still couldn't figure out the association with you and me.
By the way, were you a moderator then?
I still couldn't figure out the association with you and me.
By the way, were you a moderator then?
Tennessee R
New member
And never mind. I was reading through another ancient thread, ( http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=5760&page=2 ) and I came across the answer.
I had forgotten it, though. After all, it has been years.
Pale Horse said:
I had forgotten it, though. After all, it has been years.
Brown Fedora
New member
Good discussion, gang.
As an archaeologist myself (and that doesn't mean I'm above error, just a statement in my defense), let me just comment on this bit, here. I'll leave my views of the Ark for another day (and I think I already posted them in the distant past here, anyway):
2) Archaeology is inherently political; and the results of archaeologists going out into the field to prove something should be viewed with extreme caution. Science is not the practice of proof, but rather of disproof: you take multiple hypotheses into your excavation, and try to disprove as many as possible. The surviving hypothesis/ese are never considered ?truth?, and are always subject to further investigation and revision.
1. Archaeology is not inherently political any more than practicioners of the science allow it to be. The goal of any Social Scientist, as the eminent Mark Bloch once stated, should be to avoid the presence of any bias in as much as it is possible. Therefore, we should do our best to report "facts" and to do our best to recreate an accurate recreation of events, minus the bias of our own religious and political inclinations.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bloch is no longer required reading in most colleges, and ethics are a by-product of an age in Science which is, according to many, best left forgotten.
2. Science is not supposed to be a practice of proof, nor is it supposed to be a practice of disproof. Proof and disproof do occasionally happen, but that isn't -supposed- to be the intent of the practice.
The -real- practice of the Archaeological Method (what later became known as the 'Scientific Method', incidentally), insists that nothing can be proven or disproven without solid evidence. As a result, in -real- science (and I count Archaeology among these, forgive me Physicists and Chemists, among others),
we have very few things that are "absolutely true", and "absolutely untrue". Instead, we have theories, and hypotheses, as your point correctly discusses.
However, how many hypotheses and theories sell books?
Not many.
Everything in "big science" these days is about "absolute proof".
I had a mentor in undergrad who taught me something I've never forgotten.
"Kid," he said, "..if you're going to go out and call somebody a liar, you have to do more in science than just call him a liar. It may work in politics, or even religion, but it doesn't work in science".
In other words, if I am going to criticize someone for violating scientific principles, I'd better be prepared to use those same principles in my own criticism.
So, Hancock is full of baloney? You're probably right. A lot of what he says is full of baloney, certainly. But me saying that doesn't make it untrue. If I really want to say "he's being intellectually dishonest" or "he's completely wrong", from a -scientific- perspective, I actually have to go out, do my own work, and come up with my own hypothesis about why he's wrong.
That's been done with Von Danikken, and it really -does- work. A few wackos still accept the guy as legitimate, but the vast majority of the field has rejected him on scientific grounds; not merely because he's written one too many bad books, and not merely because he has the fashion sense of a blind Visigoth.
So, why doesn't this happen more often? First, because it makes money. There is just as much money in publishing a magazine for skeptics or filming an episode of "Bull****" as there is in publishing "Forbidden Archaeology" or making a documentary about the lost continent of Mu. It's merely the flipside of the same coin.
Second? Because being a critic is easy. While being a scientifically ethical critic is just too damned hard.
Just my two cents.
-B.F.
As an archaeologist myself (and that doesn't mean I'm above error, just a statement in my defense), let me just comment on this bit, here. I'll leave my views of the Ark for another day (and I think I already posted them in the distant past here, anyway):
2) Archaeology is inherently political; and the results of archaeologists going out into the field to prove something should be viewed with extreme caution. Science is not the practice of proof, but rather of disproof: you take multiple hypotheses into your excavation, and try to disprove as many as possible. The surviving hypothesis/ese are never considered ?truth?, and are always subject to further investigation and revision.
1. Archaeology is not inherently political any more than practicioners of the science allow it to be. The goal of any Social Scientist, as the eminent Mark Bloch once stated, should be to avoid the presence of any bias in as much as it is possible. Therefore, we should do our best to report "facts" and to do our best to recreate an accurate recreation of events, minus the bias of our own religious and political inclinations.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bloch is no longer required reading in most colleges, and ethics are a by-product of an age in Science which is, according to many, best left forgotten.
2. Science is not supposed to be a practice of proof, nor is it supposed to be a practice of disproof. Proof and disproof do occasionally happen, but that isn't -supposed- to be the intent of the practice.
The -real- practice of the Archaeological Method (what later became known as the 'Scientific Method', incidentally), insists that nothing can be proven or disproven without solid evidence. As a result, in -real- science (and I count Archaeology among these, forgive me Physicists and Chemists, among others),
we have very few things that are "absolutely true", and "absolutely untrue". Instead, we have theories, and hypotheses, as your point correctly discusses.
However, how many hypotheses and theories sell books?
Not many.
Everything in "big science" these days is about "absolute proof".
I had a mentor in undergrad who taught me something I've never forgotten.
"Kid," he said, "..if you're going to go out and call somebody a liar, you have to do more in science than just call him a liar. It may work in politics, or even religion, but it doesn't work in science".
In other words, if I am going to criticize someone for violating scientific principles, I'd better be prepared to use those same principles in my own criticism.
So, Hancock is full of baloney? You're probably right. A lot of what he says is full of baloney, certainly. But me saying that doesn't make it untrue. If I really want to say "he's being intellectually dishonest" or "he's completely wrong", from a -scientific- perspective, I actually have to go out, do my own work, and come up with my own hypothesis about why he's wrong.
That's been done with Von Danikken, and it really -does- work. A few wackos still accept the guy as legitimate, but the vast majority of the field has rejected him on scientific grounds; not merely because he's written one too many bad books, and not merely because he has the fashion sense of a blind Visigoth.
So, why doesn't this happen more often? First, because it makes money. There is just as much money in publishing a magazine for skeptics or filming an episode of "Bull****" as there is in publishing "Forbidden Archaeology" or making a documentary about the lost continent of Mu. It's merely the flipside of the same coin.
Second? Because being a critic is easy. While being a scientifically ethical critic is just too damned hard.
Just my two cents.
-B.F.
IrishLuck1980
New member
If I ever get rich I am hiring a platoon of MERCs and we are going to Eithopa and seeing if the Ark is really in that church. 
Eric Solo
Member
Smithsonian Ark o' the Covenant Article
A friend just forwarded this article to me:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/ark-covenant-200712.html
Interesting.
A friend just forwarded this article to me:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/ark-covenant-200712.html
Interesting.
kongisking
Active member
Eric Solo said:
Huh. Probably just a bunch of religious dudes trying to prove themselves correct in their belief...