Ark of the Covenant

hffan2000

New member
i once read a book by graham hancock called the sign and the seal. it discusses his theory of where the ark of the covenant was actually taken. his theory is that was taken to axum in ethiopia. i believe the theory because it seems to me if it was taken there by solomon's son by the queen of sheba it would be logical for him to take it where he was living.
what theories do you think explain where it is ?
 

dameain

New member
I actually did a report on the Ark of the Covernant for my College English class, if you would want to read it I would be happy to send it to you. It cover not only G.H.'s theory, but all of the other main ones as well.
 

bob

New member
To be honest from a historical point of view it is nigh on impossible to say with any certainty even possibilites about the Ark, as it was such a long time ago without particularly reliable texts (oh dear.....)

I would suggest that those who claim to have located the Ark simnply want to sell books rather than look into the more mundane explainations that seem to me to be more likely (i.e. It was melted down etc)
 

hffan2000

New member
i don't think it's impossible to find info on the ark and i also don't think most writers just write about it for money. there are bound to be records of it somewhere and i do think it rests in axum. i mean hancock backs his theory with scholarly evidence and i don't believe he did it for the money
 

bob

New member
hffan2000 said:
there are bound to be records of it somewhere and i do think it rests in axum. i mean hancock backs his theory with scholarly evidence and i don't believe he did it for the money

Records in the ancient world are extrememly hard to come by, there were very few actual records that would be useful for this purpose as the writing on tombs is mostly pretty useless for historical purposes and of course most papyrus that any records were written on have long since rotted away.

Searching for the Ark is like searching for a needle in several thousand haystacks, as it is one relatively small object in all of the middle east.
 

Venture

New member
There are various "arks" dispersed throughout Ethiopia. Several churches have a replica of the ark, and the one at Axum for some reason seems to be consensually held as the original. I hold to Revelation 11:19:

"Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple..."
 
If I remember right, there was a television documentary with Graham Handcock on his journey to find the Ark. He visited monasteries and locations claiming to have held the Ark on an altar at various times on its journey into Ethiopia. There is a small church there, (I don't remember the town's name) that has a fence around it. There is one priest who is the sole keeper of the church. Only he can enter, and he was chosen for this position by a rigorous selection process, because only he can look upon the Ark that rests inside.

Samuel 2:
6:6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.

6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God


Every year there is a ritual in the town,the citizens design their own Ornamental 'Arks' out of cardboard or whatever materials they can find, and carry the Ark proudly through the street. Finally they rest their ornaments on the church steps.

The last shot of the program was of Graham Handcock standing in front of the church peeking his head through the towering iron bar fence.
 

Pilot

New member
Another equally credible theory is that the Ark was hidden under the Dome of the Rock in a subterranean passage.

Regarding Graham Hancock's theory, there was someone else who searched in Ethiopia before him. In 1928, an American explorer named Gordon MacCreagh led an expedition into Abyssinia to look for the Ark. I don't think he got any closer than Hancock. The expedition was financed at least in part by the pulp magazine "Adventure." MacCreagh wrote a book about the journey entitled The Last of Free Africa. As soon as I finish the book, I'll let you know how it turned out. The point of all this is that whether the Ark is in Ethiopia or under the Dome of the Rock, the people guarding it aren't likely to be cooperative in allowing others to take a peek at it,officially. Unofficially, anyone who wants to find it, take pictures, etc. would have to be a bit like Indy and use subterfuge to obtain the truth about the Ark.
 

hffan2000

New member
where ever the ark is it should stay there. i mean the power of that particular artifact in the wrong hands would be bad news. i know that some might see my view as paranoid but just look in the bible and you'll see the ark is extremely dangerous. so my thoughts are let it stay lost. i don't believe it's intended to be used anyway but no matter what our beliefs i think we can all agree it is an important artifact when talking about the history of this world .
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
Cain said:
Marcus Petrius said:
Hffan, this might hit you as something new, but not everything is exactly like it is described in the bible.

Not to be confrontational, but I beg to differ.
If anything, there are not any archaeology finds, etc that can disprove the Bible.
 

hffan2000

New member
yeah the bible is actually a help in the field of archeology. i believe that it will be an even bigger help in the future and that what we find out about the ark is just the tip of the iceberg.
 

Marcus Petrius

New member
For me the Ark is just like any other artifact, a dead thing that cannot do anything. I'm not religious (If science is a religion, that's the one religion I want to be part of), so I don't really see how it would be powerfull.
 

Venture

New member
If the ark were to be found now, I daresay it would be powerless. It carried the manifest Presence of God, which now resides just as powerfully in the born-again spirit of a believer, according to the New Testament. To an unbeliever, contact could still be catastrophic. But in regard to Biblical accuracy, archaeologists have been unable to disprove one Biblical account. To the contrary, many archaeologists who set out to do so have been converted to Christianity on it's historical accuracy alone. In exemplis, the route of the Exodus was a "laughingstock" of the scientific community for almost a hundred years. No evidence of it was found on the traditional route, which crossed along the Gulf of Suez and continued down to the southernmost tip of the Sinai Peninsula before curving back up to enter Canaan. However, the Apostle Paul locates Mt. Sinai in Arabia. So when that was used as the focal point of Hebrew travels, crossing the Gulf of Aqaba rather than Suez, evidence after evidence was uncovered. God desires faith, not "blind faith." He's not afraid to stand up to any scrutiny.
 

Marcus Petrius

New member
How could contact with the Ark of the Covenant be harmfull to me? It's gold plated wooden chest. And there's possibly sand in there. And maybe, just maybe, some commandments.
Nothing to be afraid of I guess.
 

bob

New member
Cain said:
In exemplis, the route of the Exodus was a "laughingstock" of the scientific community for almost a hundred years. No evidence of it was found on the traditional route, which crossed along the Gulf of Suez and continued down to the southernmost tip of the Sinai Peninsula before curving back up to enter Canaan. However, the Apostle Paul locates Mt. Sinai in Arabia. So when that was used as the focal point of Hebrew travels, crossing the Gulf of Aqaba rather than Suez, evidence after evidence was uncovered. God desires faith, not "blind faith." He's not afraid to stand up to any scrutiny.

I dont suppose you could give me some information on this as this sort of thing interests me, and what i have read really does bury Exodus in soooo many different ways.

I would be interested to hear a different point of view.
 
Top