The Lost Ark Of The Covenant

[Anonymous]

The Ark of the Covenant

Raymond Matthew Wray of the American Catholic magazine Crisis, who wrote about his own search for the lost ark, said there are five ark scenarios:

The Hollywood version had the ark sitting in a U.S. government warehouse. Some think ancient Israelites hid it under the Temple when the Babylonians invaded. Others say the Babylonians stole or destroyed it. The amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt, who has since died, claimed he rediscovered the ark under the hill where Christ was crucified.

There's no evidence for any of this.

Then there's No. 5, the Ethiopian scenario.

The Bible reports that the Queen of Sheba visited King Solomon. Most scholars say she came from present-day Yemen. But Ethiopian legend maintains she was from that country and gave birth to Solomon's son Menelik, who founded a monarchy that lasted until 1974.

This tradition says when Menelik visited Solomon, his aides stole the ark and brought it home. It was kept for centuries in other locations but is now said to be held under strictest secrecy in the town of Axum (or Aksum).

naplesnews.com/02/08/neapolitan/d810296a.htm
Link is dead. No archived version available.

So... where is it really?

 

[Anonymous]

It's in Scotland. Along with the Holy Grail, Jesus' body, and various old and important stones.

 

[Anonymous]

Kilwinning, Scotland.

The knights Templars may have brought it here.

The Templars did excavate the ruins of Solomons Temple and they found tunnels and cavities as well as some of the treasure that is mentioned in the copper scroll. In the late 19th Century an excavation of Solomons Temple revealed some old archaeological shafts that were estimated to be from the 12th Century. Inside the shafts were found some Templar goods. Swords, seals etc,etc. They suddenly became incredible wealthy and the most powerful military movers since the Roman empire.

Personaly, I believe that they found heretical scrolls which revealed additional information that contradicted their theology.

This could have been the reason that they were condemned as heretics and destroyed. When they were condemned, many of them fled to Scotland, which had been their home anyway.

12 Ships dissapeared from La Rochelle dock on Friday the 13th of October taking with them their treasure as well as the kings and other nobles wealth for the were the first multi-national bankers.

Remember that much of the dead sea scrolls and other apocryphal papers do indeed clash with present christion belief.
We have found thousands of them. I think the Templars found some a little bit earlier than us.

 

[ogopogo3]

Judah fell to the Babylonians in 586 BC. If it was really made of gold, it was probably melted down as a spoil of war.

More info:

lamblion.com/prophecy/issues/PI-14.html
Link is long dead. The MIA webpage can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20020418002013/http://www.lamblion.com:80/prophecy/issues/PI-14.html

 

[Anonymous]

It is certainly true that if the Ark was present during the fracas it would have definately been melted down and put to some other purpose.

However, the Ark dissapears in the Bible. I dont mean that there is a verse where the Ark vanishes. I mean that it is no longer spoken of. If it had been destroyed in 586bc it would almost certainly be mentioned in the scriptures. Indeed its destruction would feature so highly in the old testement that its final hours would have been greatly overplayed and exaggerated.

There really is some compelling evidence to be found when studying the Ethiopian legend. If this legend has any basis of truth it escaped the afore mentioned conflicts.

 

[Anonymous]

I've heard it was under the Dome of the Rock, and once the Israelis kick the arabs out to rebuild Solomon's Temple, it'll show up. I can't remember who is involved, but several years ago, I recall some guys saying they knew for a fact it was there, but they couldn't get the Muslims to let them at it. My question is, how would the Muslims react to it being there? Would they destroy or hide it, since it would be viewed as "evidence" promoting Israel's view of the world? After all, Jews and Muslims can't both be right.

 

[rynner2]

Would they destroy or hide it, since it would be viewed as "evidence" promoting Israel's view of the world? After all, Jews and Muslims can't both be right.

Muslims regard both Jews and Christians as 'Peoples of the Book', since all three faiths venerate the OT, and recognise many of the prophets as genuine voices of God or Allah..

Discovery of the Ark would only strengthen the faith of all of them in the OT (and probably lead to even more fundamentalist rants from various quarters...).

 

[ninja_cat]

Discovery of the Ark would only strengthen the faith of all of them in the OT (and probably lead to even more fundamentalist rants from various quarters...).

Maybe if we find it we should just cover it up again and walk quietly away, this is not a good time to stir up more religious mania.

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by ninja
Maybe if we find it we should just cover it up again and walk quietly away, this is not a good time to stir up more religious mania.

Why not, Ninja? Is there a great deal of mania going on currently of which I'm unaware? Surely, you don't view the States/Iraq thing as religious in nature, and I'm not so sure the current struggle against Bin Laden is, either. I question the nature of his motives, since killing innocents is taboo in virtually every modern religion. Rather, I'd refer you to this and suggest again a desire for power over others is the motive. Perhaps if people paid greater heed to religion they profess to follow, things would go much more smoothly. In fact, if we were to discover this magical artifact, it might compel some of us to be on better behavior. Or so my archaic mind would like to think.

Embedded link is dead. There are no clues to the identity of the (apparently defunct) site to which the link led.

 

[ninja_cat]

Maybe thats the point of religion - power over others? To clear up what I meant but didn't quite express - it should read as organised religion being a problem. As to the religious mayhem going on, maybe you are right - alot of it being done in the name of religion for the sake of absolute power. Still beggars belief in this day and age of 'scientific reason' that such a notion can have so much sway over people.

As to finding this relic, I really do believe that it would stir up a lot of religious fundamentalism as people fight for the right of ownership of the relic.

 

[minordrag]

Seems to me that the Ark was used almost solely to kick the heathen's ass.

 

[Anonymous]

"If it had been destroyed in 586bc it would almost certainly be mentioned in the scriptures. Indeed its destruction would feature so highly in the old testement that its final hours would have been greatly overplayed and exaggerated."

This is your editorial position. The compilers of the book may have felt differently.

It is not unreasonable to think that just not mentioning the icon anymore might have been preferable to admitting that the symbol of god's covenant with man on earth had been destroyed by peoples whose god was apparently more powerful.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe if we find it we should just cover it up again and walk quietly away, this is not a good time to stir up more religious mania.

Very good idea; all that melting and getting frazzled an' stuff...

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Minor Drag
Seems to me that the Ark was used almost solely to kick the heathen's ass.

Drag, my good man, that is exactly why we need to locate it ASAP! We just let Israel have it, and our Middle-Eastern problems are over. We just sit back and watch the fireworks.

 

[minordrag]

Drag, my good man, that is exactly why we need to locate it ASAP! We just let Israel have it, and our Middle-Eastern problems are over. We just sit back and watch the fireworks.

You mean, let Israel have it or let them "have it?"

I can't decide myself.

 

[Anonymous]

I always wondered why the Ark "levelled and flattened mountains"

What did the mountains ever to to it, I ask you?

It "laid Waste" and killed thousands of little furry animals that were going about their dailly lives. Why?

 

[minordrag]

Because, by some accounts, it was a nuclear device. Remember the bearers who "turned to flame" for no reason.

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Minor Drag
...by some accounts, it was a nuclear device.

Not to sound blasphemous, but if the Almighty has to resort to using contemporary methods of power for his weaponry, I must admit I'd be a bit let down. It makes the Ark come off like a really bad-ass Sigfried and Roy prop, and that's just sad. It's like the Burning Bush was all smoke and mirrors. As soon as the card tricks start, I swear I'm outta here.

 

[ruffready]

the ark of cov

Its weird; you get a bunch of well educated people (scientist in many fields for eg.) and they write some really thought provoking "hypothosies ", an you'll get a bunch of religious sects coming out of the wood works, -some screeming ,some yellen at cha'- some,." even wanten ta kill ya!", but those same people will take stuff written a few thousand years ago and believe every darn word -(some enuff to even strap a bomb on themselves an blow up to smitherines) go figure!!! jeeez!! The Ark .I think it was a real good magic trick (for mind,body and sprirt,"eg.Fatima") as some have sugested,-and as the story was told and told add infinitium,--"it grew to what we have now"---some really good movies!

 

[oll_lewis]

In the second book of chronicles chapter 12 and the first book of kings chapter 14 verse 25-27 it says that king Shihak of egypt raided the temple while it was under the reign of king Rehoboam (solomans son) of judea in about 930bc
shihak's egyptian name was Sheshonq the first and he was the first of the 22nd dynisty kings of egypt (a powerfull libyan family from heracleopolis) and his capital city was aparently Bubastis wherever that is.
He is credited with nicking all the gold and everything he could get his hands on from the temple so it stands to reson he would have taken the ark too, in any case he died only a short time later so maybee some thing happened like when the ark got nicked in samual one but it isn't recorded how he died so we'll never know.
Anyhow if we find where he stored his tresures we can probably find the ark...


edit: after doing some research I can now say bubastis is near zigazag in northan egypt. Zigazag is not far north east of the great piradmid at giza. but I concede that fact is'nt much use to all those people looking for the ark in ethiopia, israil, syria etc for whatever reason

 

[ruffready]

ark

Oh.

 

[Anonymous]

In the second book of chronicles chapter 12 and the first book of kings chapter 14 verse 25-27 it says that king Shihak of egypt raided the temple while it was under the reign of king Rehoboam (solomans son) of judea in about 930bc
shihak's egyptian name was Sheshonq the first and he was the first of the 22nd dynisty kings of egypt (a powerfull libyan family from heracleopolis) and his capital city was aparently Bubastis wherever that is.
He is credited with nicking all the gold and everything he could get his hands on from the temple so it stands to reson he would have taken the ark too, in any case he died only a short time later so maybee some thing happened like when the ark got nicked in samual one but it isn't recorded how he died so we'll never know.
Anyhow if we find where he stored his tresures we can probably find the ark...

Unfortunately for that theory, Sheshonq was big on publicizing all his triumphs, usually on a big wall frieze. And unfortunately although all of his other campaigns are listed, there is apparently no reference to any raid on Jerusalem.

 

[Anonymous]

As a non-christian historian, I believe in the possibility of the Ark as a "thing" of substance. From an archaeological standpoint I see no reason for it not to exist, if it has been well kept and protected. Many other things from this period still exist and this large tub is no different.

However, from a non-christian standpoint, I do not believe that it contains/contained the broken tablets mentioned in the old testement. It may have contained scrolls or even the actual law of the land. Who can tell...........

My belief in the Old Testement Holy Ark requires a belief in God.
I believe that it is/was a box and that it contained something
important but not....well....y'know.

In Ethiopia there are African Jews whose existance is still denied in the political circles of that part of the world. They have a replica of the Holy of Holies in every church and they believe that a church without this cavity is simply an empty vessal.

So, to this day, there are many Arks but we are after the one true Ark. The Ark of the covenant.

At present there are priests in Ethiopia who believe that they are actually standing guard over the true Ark. They commit their entire lives to the task and people have been shot and stabbed because they tried to gain access to it. It is some career if it turns out to be false. They do stand guard over this chapel and they do restrict entry to just one person, once a year. If this person has access to it and it is not there, then he knows about its absence. However, he continues to stand guard over it.

True, people dont always do the logical thing and yes, many people waste their lives over absent things. But the priest is now a very old man and has been standing guard nearly all his life.
He is either enwrapped with his faith, fibbing along with the previous keepers or he actually is standing guard.

It seems to me a tad heavy handed; protecting an empty vessal with threats of violence and deadly outcomes.

 

[oll_lewis]

Unfortunately for that theory, Sheshonq was big on publicizing all his triumphs, usually on a big wall frieze. And unfortunately although all of his other campaigns are listed, there is apparently no reference to any raid on Jerusalem.

well Rehoboam had only been in the judean throne for about 1 year before Sheshong died so the conquest of Judea by Sheshong would have been completed (they are recorded as gaining controle of the contry up to Meggido) probably a few months or even days before his death so any freize would have had to have been conitioned by his sucsessor Osorkon who had enouth troble at home with the preists and upper nubia to want to glamorise a predosesser (which was not the done thing anyway, {analagy: would tony blair want to start taking up John major? }).
so the theory dose pan out a lot better than the etheopian (if you have the ark why did you not ask God to stop the famine?) and the babalonian theory.

none of the thorys make the ark any less lost though

 

[Anonymous]

Here is a thought......

Where is the one place that the Ark could have resided without the risk of capture. The one place where nobody thought to look.

Right where it belonged, in the Holy of Holies in the Inner Chamber of King Solomons Temple.

Remember that the Ark was "hidden" before evil befell it.
It was not snatched from its home. The guardians moved it before it could get plundered. Well, there is no evidence that the Holy of Holies was ever disturbed, even though the Temple around it crumbled.

When I play hunt the thimble or hide and seek with my kids I use the one place that they dont look. Under their noses!

However, if you are a people who are very aware that your lives are in peril then you may take the Ark with you rather than leave it under the nose of the enemy.

 

[Anonymous]

well Rehoboam had only been in the judean throne for about 1 year before Sheshong died so the conquest of Judea by Sheshong would have been completed (they are recorded as gaining controle of the contry up to Meggido) probably a few months or even days before his death so any freize would have had to have been conitioned by his sucsessor Osorkon who had enouth troble at home with the preists and upper nubia to want to glamorise a predosesser (which was not the done thing anyway, {analagy: would tony blair want to start taking up John major? }).

I was given to understand that the date of Osorkon's ascension only works out that way if you use the Biblical chronology, and that the contemporaneous Egyptian chronology gives different results. Is this erroneous?

 

[oll_lewis]

I was given to understand that the date of Osorkon's ascension only works out that way if you use the Biblical chronology, and that the contemporaneous Egyptian chronology gives different results. Is this erroneous?

I checked it out in 3 of my books 2 being on anchent civilisations in general (also focasing on south america, china and mesapotamia) and one book that focases on Egypt and their religions. Couldn't find any date other than 929 bc for Oso's ascention to the throne, but if you do know of a diferent date please tell along with the sourse. As a theory it's not one of the most well researched ones cos most people seaching for the ark have just lached onto the other theorys for some reason, so any input is valid.

 

[Anonymous]

I checked it out in 3 of my books 2 being on anchent civilisations in general (also focasing on south america, china and mesapotamia) and one book that focases on Egypt and their religions. Couldn't find any date other than 929 bc for Oso's ascention to the throne, but if you do know of a diferent date please tell along with the sourse. As a theory it's not one of the most well researched ones cos most people seaching for the ark have just lached onto the other theorys for some reason, so any input is valid.

I'll get back to you. (On nightshift at the mo' so can check nothing, but if any of the bks you mentioned is the one I think it is, (Penguin Illustrated?) I was a bit dubious about their take on Judean history. Can't recall why at the mo': might've been something concrete, might've been just one of my mother's periodic attempts to convert me to Xtianity having my back up at the time. I'll look at it in the morning.)

Edit 01/09/02 12:30 hrs. This is going to take longer than I thought as I seem to have mislaid a couple of my ancient history books. Also meantime, I'll have to refresh my memory of the article by Israeli archeology professor Ze'ev Herzog in Prometheus #4 (Prometheus Publishing, 2000), 'Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho', which IIRC deals little directly -if at all- with the topic at hand, but which poses some hard questions about the 'science' of Biblical archeology in Israel in general.

 

[oll_lewis]

no nead to worry there I am a trained scientist so I know how to ases a sourse to make sure it's not poorly researched or put together, when doing background reading the same guidelines that go for seleting scienificly valid references can be aplied for history theology archeology and most other disaplines so I try to be prity critical when selecting sourses so of course I'd be intereseted to learn of alternative sourses and ideas that I could aprase by ordering them from the libary or something (you can probably guess by now that the jewish historys are one of my main areas of interest )

 

[ninja_cat]

They do stand guard over this chapel and they do restrict entry to just one person, once a year. If this person has access to it and it is not there, then he knows about its absence. However, he continues to stand guard over it.

True, people dont always do the logical thing and yes, many people waste their lives over absent things. But the priest is now a very old man and has been standing guard nearly all his life.
He is either enwrapped with his faith, fibbing along with the previous keepers or he actually is standing guard.

It seems to me a tad heavy handed; protecting an empty vessal with threats of violence and deadly outcomes.

Just a thought - maybe they never opened it? They have been told it is the true ark and religiously accept that fact.