Ark of the Covenant

~Bender~

New member
I was watching fox news this morning and they had a piece on the Ark. Apparently, a German archeologist claims that he's close to discovering the final resting place of the Ark, somewhere in the palace of Queen Sheba, in Askum, Ethiopia. That's all the details I have right now, but I thought you archeology buffs would like a heads up. Here's the Link to Fox news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355264,00.html
 

ValenciaGrail

New member
Ark at Axum in Ethiopia

The Axum theory is actually very credible IMO.

This book by Graham Hancock is highly interesting, and the history is properly researched and the conclusions are credible:

http://www.amazon.com/Sign-Seal-Quest-Lost-Covenant/dp/0671865412

Just ignore the 80 pages where Hancock entertains hokey thoeries that the Ark's powers originate from some sort of radioactive, Atlantis-created lost technology .... This chapter is non-essential to Hancock's legitimate historical thesis

Anything by Ron Wyatt can safely be dismissed as bunk. I suppose even broken clocks are correct twice a day, but Wyatt has made all sorts of fanciful claims which have been widely discredited. He was an attention hound, period. His "finds" are either laughable (e.g. a rock formation shaped like a boat is Noah's Ark) or he conveniently can't produce tangible evidence (Ark of the covenant under the Temple Mount)
 

The Tingler

New member
I always thought that this theory - that the pharaoh known as 'Shishak' to the people he invaded was Rameses III, and that the Ark was not only brought back to Egypt but can still be seen on the walls of Medinet Habu - seemed very plausible. The box doesn't look like the Raiders Ark, but the similarities are there. A large important box carried on poles with wings on top of it? Important enough to be inscribed on the wall of Rameses III's Mortuary Temple alongside his famous conquests and battles? Sounds very possible to me. At least that part.
 

ValenciaGrail

New member
Yeah, the Shishak=Ramses III theory does have some merit.

The Egyptians did use Ark-like objects for ceremonial purposes. This could have partially influenced the Ark's eventual design

I've always been more convinced by the Axum theory, mainly because
- There is such an ancient tradition regarding whatever object is actually in St. Mary's Church
- There are fewer historical assumptions necessary ... and the ones that are necessary seem to make sense
- They have SOMETHING in that Chapel...Ark or not....

Coming in second, IMO, is the theory that the Ark is somewhere under the Temple Mount. Very little archaeology has happened there since the 2nd Temple period, due in part to Roman, then Muslim control. To this day, the tunnels underneath the Temple site are not fully explored and mapped. The priests could have hidden it there to keep it from the Babylonians in 586 BC.

The Templars did something on the site in the 12th century (hence their name), but it's unlikley they excavated everything.
 

guag

New member
Solving History: The Ark of the Covenant

I know this isn't specifically Raiders of the Lost Ark-related, but as I turned on the Discovery channel just now there is a special regarding the possible location of The Ark of the Covenant.

Of course we all know where its true resting place is. ;) (y)

Mods please move this if it should be in a different location.
 

Archaeologist

New member
Hmmm... if the body of it is wooden overlay with gold, the lid and figure atop are solid gold and there is the mercy seat on top. Well, if it is still around, even if just sitting in one place, it more than likely would have collapsed by now under the weight of the solid gold. Gold overlay wouldn't be able to support it. Just a thought people should keep in mind when they claim to have the original or have seen it. :rolleyes:
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Archaeologist said:
Hmmm... if the body of it is wooden overlay with gold, the lid and figure atop are solid gold and there is the mercy seat on top. Well, if it is still around, even if just sitting in one place, it more than likely would have collapsed by now under the weight of the solid gold. Gold overlay wouldn't be able to support it. Just a thought people should keep in mind when they claim to have the original or have seen it. :rolleyes:

What makes you say that?
 

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
It's in Pasadena, California

post_roseparade_ark1.jpg


Exhibited at the January 1, 2010 Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade

:)
 

AnnieJones

New member
ROTLA said:
where do you believe the staff might rest? Just curious (and thought it might be an interesting topic).
I know where it is!

It's in a huge warehouse in Nevada.Just kidding.:D LOL
 

Archaeologist

New member
I say that for two reasons: 1) gold is one of the softest metals (I believe it is the softest, but I am not sure at the moment).
2) We have examples of wood overlay with gold from approximately those times.
These are two facts. I will explain my line of thinking but first I will explain the archaeological example I mean first:

The ark was created during the exodus, around the time of Rameses II (debatable, but just keep reading here), approximately 1280 BC +/- X number of years. A couple pharaohs before Rameses the Great (II) was a pharaoh everyone should know: Tutankhamun. His undisturbed chamber housed furniture made of wood overlay with gold. The techniques used on this furniture can be assumed to be the same that would have been used on the ark.
The chair from Tut, wood overlay with gold, can no longer support a person (e.g. a person around the age and size of a boy king). In fact, according to Carter's notes he had to make some repairs on it because parts of overlay was coming off because of poor wood conditions! An important point to be taken from this example is that goly overlay is not a structural element of the Arks design, or any design with gold overlay. It is for aesthetic purposes. Another point is we know what happens to wood in these conditions.

Now I have my example of wood objects (others in the tomb also) with overlay gold. I know how they last when left alone in good condition until discovered. When applied to the Ark, I can safely assume more or less the same if the Ark is sitting around waiting to be discovered.

Considering the Ark has a solid gold lid and two solid gold angels on top of that applying constant pressure to deteriorating wood I come to the conclusion that it would at the very best be dilapidated at this point in time.
Now if it was the other way around: Solid gold chest with a wooden lid & angels overlay with gold... (y)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Archaeologist, that was an informative post.

I had always thought of the the Ark being constructed from a hardwood, such as oak (as used for house beams) which gets harder with age. I assumed that the Ark (if kept dry) would have remained a sturdy object (if it wasn't more likely destined to be melted down).
 

Archaeologist

New member
That is very true. Personally I would use ebony for the Ark. But I suppose a survey of the land should be taken to determine which woods are currently available in the area and, more importantly, which woods came from that area at that time. I would personally love to see the Ark in pristine condition, but unfortunately the facts do not point in that direction.

Can we assume they used the local material? Were they carrying supplies such as oak or ebony? Did others repair the Ark over the time? Can we assume this? Etc. So many variables to consider.

The same should be said with the wood's stability, regardless of which wood or repairs. That was only one condition (my scenario of Tut Conditions), but if the ark is deeper in a mountain resulting in cooler conditions we have more variables to consider. Climate changes with the region, but I will not assume a region and stay with it left in situ in a cave/carved mountain. Imagine the Ark placed deeper underground than Tut's tomb. We lose the heat and dryness that preserves (e.g. mummies, etc). That in itself is bad, but now lets imagine for a period as short as 100 years, once a day, or even a week, an elite enters the mountain cave to worship with the Ark. The moisture from his breath only adds to the problem.

But since location, conditions, repairs, history, etc are all unknown we can only speculate. That actually sounds like a good pet project I might start. Take each region the Ark is theorized/rumored/or said to be in and put them through various scenarios with the variables: Wood, Repairs (yes/no), Dimensions of the Lid/Angles (for variables in weight of Gold), Climate, Room (cave/cavern, Church, or other). Factor in geological conditions at the time the Ark was "lost" for the climate since that time and don't forget eruptions or earthquakes for the regions. That should provide a better idea of the condition of the Ark in each local.

Of course once the project chart is finished, believers of certain locals that are not probable will just say: Power of God kept it in perfect condition! :rolleyes:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Archaeologist said:
That is very true. Personally I would use ebony for the Ark. But I suppose a survey of the land should be taken to determine which woods are currently available in the area and, more importantly, which woods came from that area at that time. I would personally love to see the Ark in pristine condition, but unfortunately the facts do not point in that direction.

Can we assume they used the local material? Were they carrying supplies such as oak or ebony? Did others repair the Ark over the time? Can we assume this? Etc. So many variables to consider.

The same should be said with the wood's stability, regardless of which wood or repairs. That was only one condition (my scenario of Tut Conditions), but if the ark is deeper in a mountain resulting in cooler conditions we have more variables to consider. Climate changes with the region, but I will not assume a region and stay with it left in situ in a cave/carved mountain. Imagine the Ark placed deeper underground than Tut's tomb. We lose the heat and dryness that preserves (e.g. mummies, etc). That in itself is bad, but now lets imagine for a period as short as 100 years, once a day, or even a week, an elite enters the mountain cave to worship with the Ark. The moisture from his breath only adds to the problem.

But since location, conditions, repairs, history, etc are all unknown we can only speculate. That actually sounds like a good pet project I might start. Take each region the Ark is theorized/rumored/or said to be in and put them through various scenarios with the variables: Wood, Repairs (yes/no), Dimensions of the Lid/Angles (for variables in weight of Gold), Climate, Room (cave/cavern, Church, or other). Factor in geological conditions at the time the Ark was "lost" for the climate since that time and don't forget eruptions or earthquakes for the regions. That should provide a better idea of the condition of the Ark in each local.

Of course once the project chart is finished, believers of certain locals that are not probable will just say: Power of God kept it in perfect condition! :rolleyes:

Be sure to report your findings here! :hat:
 

Archaeologist

New member
Acacias, also called "Abel-****tim" (Num 33:49), a plain or valley in the land of Moab where the Israelites were encamped after their two victories over Sihon and Og, at the close of their desert wanderings, and from which Joshua sent forth two spies (q.v.) "secretly" to "view" the land and Jericho (Jos 2:1).
Also or alternatively "****tim".
This is according to King James translation.

But this means that the passage:
And they shall make an ark of ****tim wood... (Ex, 25:10)
which means they shall make an ark of wood from the Acacias/Shiitim, etc valley. Woods from this valley are the options for the Ark according to the Bible.
But this is the King James version, perhaps the original text could offer more details, however, I do not know ancient Hebrew. Yet. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top