Talk:Ark of the Covenant/Archive 2

Significance of the Ark in the Book of Revelation

Maybe we can expand on this or explain it's significance in heaven? Barry White 17:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not recommended, Barry. It's a waste of time. It'll only be vandalised. Garry Denke 03:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote you the novelisation of a comedy programme from the UK:

'Is this rumour true?' 'Yes.' A straight answer! I was somewhat taken aback. 'How do you know,' I asked, 'if you don't move in such exalted circles?' 'I mean,' he explained, 'it is true that it is rumoured.'

In short, you can't prove a rumour true, but you should prove that it is rumoured. Given that, in the subsection above, there is an explicit claim that the Catholic Church teaches certain things, finding links or hard-copy sources shouldn't be too hard. But until then, I think it would be a kindness to the RCC not to allege they handle the Bible with all the facility of Dan Brown on a bad day, and a kindness to fellow-editors not to use words like vandalism when they remove material possessed of all the verifiability of a positivist's logical foundations. Wooster (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising G-D, gar-den. Thank you. Garry Denke 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Church (disambiguation) and Talk:Catholic Church (disambiguation) look good Dad, sign me up. John

I still want sources that this is said by the organisation you claim. C'mon, you can make a website, right?

And it would help if it were made quite plain that when the article says "The Catholic Church", it doesn't mean the Church commonly called Catholic which is headquartered in the Vatican City, or the Church catholic throughout the world and through all ages. Changing the link The Catholic Church, which presently points to the RCC, would be a start. Moreover, placing references to your own pet project above the commonly-accepted meaning of "The Catholic Church" is simply wrong; they will be dealt with shortly. I observe from your talk page that you've come close to being banned for vandalism before. Far be it from me to accuse you of vandalism, but you might take along, hard look at WP policies on notability, verifiability, original research and vandalism before editing again. Wooster (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church websites forthcoming.

The Father of The Catholic Church changed the links.

Garry Denke 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the organisation to the classical credal description of the Church is hardly going to help. If you want people to think you're slightly unhinged, the best way to do it is to incorporate an organisation laying claim to a well-respected and historical "brand name" with a solid pedigree. I also point out that the amount of material in the subsection will not comport with the relative significance of the claim. What passes for supporting argumentation can be removed, for a start. I suspect that something like the following may be passable. Wooster (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A Texas-based and incorporated organisation using the name "The Catholic Church" claims that the Ark of the Covenant, along with several other artefacts important to various world religions, is buried under Stonehenge. The Ark itself is said to be located under the Heelstone. (+ link for verifiability)

Not only is the gold Ark of the Testimony beneath Heelstone, but the gold Mercy Seat, the gold Table for the Showbread, the gold Candlestick, the gold Ephod, the gold Breastplate and the gold Altar of Incense also. According to DI's 2004 ground-penetrating radargram, all seven (7) are packed inside the brasen Altar of Burnt Offering 4 ft (1.2m) below Heelstone, with the southernmost gold Ark of the Covenant long axis east-west. Garry Denke 14:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, this is getting out of hand. Look, what you need, before this goes any further, is some proof that there is a rumour circulating that the Ark of the Covenant is underneath the Heelstone of Stonehenge. There has thus far been exactly no evidence presented to that effect, and until there is, I'm not going to discuss how the article can appropriately incorporate that claim. Wooster (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

With Google circulating it worldwide, The Catholic Church incorporates the fact. I know it's a waste of time. I know it'll only be vandalised. And I know England gets to lose 7 wonders twice today. 07/07/07 Garry Denke 12:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dad, maybe it's a good thing Great Britain lost, now the Agency can tunnel under Stonehenge, and at the same time the Heritage Department can finish Hawley's tunnel to the bottom of Arc Trench, like he wanted to do decades ago. All of the dozers, backhoes and digging equipment can be there now, without reluctant UNESCO and the new voting world breathing down their backs. England losing takes the real world's focus off the place. And with Stonehenge being a proven world loser, just an old pile of rocks nobody cares about, you have the reason why it was Wise and EZ hiding the 7 wonders there. So it's a good thing. 07/07/07 John

Hey Wooster, no reason to be vandalising Stonehenge any longer, voting of the 7 wonders has been closed. 07/07/07 John

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I've never even heard of the "new 7 wonders", whatever that is. And "vandalism", I re-iterate, is a pretty strong term to be using for someone who is demanding that extraordinary claims be supported by extraordinary evidence. Wooster (talk)\

Denke, your "evidence" is, as far as I can make out, planted in its entirety by you on bulletin boards. As proof of a circulating rumour, that's impressively disingenuous. Frankly, I'm resiling from my original opinion that any of this belongs anywhere near Wikipedia. To say it smells fishy would be to discredit the phylum Cordata. Look, Google can do my research, too. I shall be watching this article like a hawk. Wooster (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Where my Ark is doesn't even belong under "Rumoured present locations" anyway, Wooster. After the dig be sure u rename ur "Rumoured present locations" section. Being u "never even heard of the new 7 wonders", it is EZ seeing why this is "extraordinary" for u. A bit high brow. Here then is my suggested title for ur renamed section, "Rumored past locations". Now back u go to stand a watchful eye at "Ark of the Covenant", Wooster the hawkster  :) Garry Denke 23:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Lucifer, the Devil, and Satan (07/07/07)

Hey Dad, a bit high brow is right. It's phylum Chordata, not Wooster's Cordata. I know. I'm a biologist. John

Could be Wooster wants to discredit Bateson and his phylum Chordata now. Or maybe Wooster's just being facetious, as you were at the top of this page. In either case, it really doesn't matter. We need to get to the oilfield. The rig's already cut through the Cretaceous, we'll be in the Carboniferous at first light. Garry Denke 05:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Lucifer, the Devil, and Satan

Even the Live Earth musicians "Rocking the World" know the difference between a plant species name like Cordata and an animal phylum name like Chordata, so surely the Wooster was jesting. I'm still watching the Live Earth concert (Rothera Research Station), but I'll be at the rig by morning. John

Do you think the 24-hour 7-continent Live Earth concerts of 07/07/07 featuring over a 100 musical artists and viewed by 2 billion people will trigger a global movement to unearth the "Ark of my Testimony" from below Heelstone? The reason I ask here is so that others (like Wooster et al, who never hear about such things) may know this: "I am not recharging my quadrupole universe and all life bearing planets' dipole fields with that certain universal polarity flip electro-magnetic monopole charge (+/-) until the 'Ark of my Covenant' is excavated from under Heelstone". Needed is their recording so the hawkster "Ark of the Covenant" article may be updated with verifiable Wiki approved references. Live Earth people "Rocked the World", the geomagnetic reversal a go, global warming to be reversed. Garry Denke 08:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously...

I know its probably old hat now, but I was shocked when I read the top of the discussion page that if the Quran mentions the Ark "...I'll keep on deleting it." Thats sick! Im glad the Quran is mentioned within this article and Im glad it didn't get deleted. Im not sure who it was that first suggested that the Quran segment should be deleted but it sure as hell wasn't a cool statement to make. He was probably Israeli... False messiah uk 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you're "cool" with "he was probably Israeli" though. I think you ought to reflect on how that makes you look. - Nunh-huh 02:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Real" Covenant

Should maybe consider putting a picture of the Ark from that documentary The Exodus Decoded, because the little gold piece of jewlery is supposed to be what the Ark actually looked like since the people that made the jewlery also were supposed to have made the Ark itself.

The "Real" Covenant Extended

I saw that, but the people that made that jewelry were not even in the right geographical area. It is also safe to say that the ark did not look like that because the cherubim did not look like that. There is a pretty thorough description of cherubim in Ezekiel. They are fairly strange creatures and no depiction of the Ark that I have ever seen featured cherubim that looked like the description.

Spirit of Ezekiel's wheel

Spirit of Ezekiel's wheels

Ezekiel 1:1 NOW IT came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river Chebar that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. ² In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity, ³ the word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was there upon him. ⁴ And I looked, and, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, a great cloud, with a fire flashing up, so that a brightness was round about it; and out of the midst thereof as the colour of electrum, out of the midst of the fire. ⁵ And out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man. ⁶ And every one had four faces, and every one of them had four wings. ⁷ And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot; and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass. ⁸ And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and as for the faces and wings of them four, ⁹ their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward. ¹⁰ As for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of a man; and they four had the face of a lion on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four had also the face of an eagle. ¹¹ Thus were their faces; and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies. ¹² And they went every one straight forward; whither the spirit was to go, they went; they turned not when they went. ¹³ As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like coals of fire, burning like the appearance of torches; it flashed up and down among the living creatures; and there was brightness to the fire, and out of the fire went forth lightning. ¹⁴ And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning. ¹⁵ Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel at the bottom hard by the living creatures, at the four faces thereof. ¹⁶ The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl; and they four had one likeness; and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel within a wheel. ¹⁷ When they went, they went toward their four sides; they turned not when they went. ¹⁸ As for their rings, they were high and they were dreadful; and they four had their rings full of eyes round about. ¹⁹ And when the living creatures went, the wheels went hard by them; and when the living creatures were lifted up from the bottom, the wheels were lifted up. ²⁰ Whithersoever the spirit was to go, as the spirit was to go thither, so they went; and the wheels were lifted up beside them; for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. ²¹ When those went, these went, and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up beside them; for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. (1917 Jewish Publication Society Tanakh)

• Ark of the Covenant Ark of the Covenant

Nevertheless, the Ark is not lost as you can read about here:

• Fate of the Ark of the Covenant Fate of the Ark of the Covenant

Furthermore, there is another ark of the covenant besides the real one which one can read about here:

• Abomination of Desolation Abomination of Desolation

It is nearly as important as the real Ark of the Covenant. Phalanxes 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

electrum Ez 1:4 stater. John

I like the way Ezekiel blended the Ark's description with Stonehenge's wheels. His text 'vision' of that already wisked (winged) geographically north, "a stormy wind came out of the north, a great cloud", kept it well hidden for millennia. So did his switching around of Heelstone's four sculptured creatures (Rev. 4:7) clockwise description; lion head above the wings, calf head under right wing, face like a man under left wing, centered by a flying eagle's two wings, with four wings of the Ark directly below: totaling (Rev. 4:8) six wings. They kept them confused for millennia. Ezekiel's holey stone full of eyeholes within and seven Spirits encircled by Stonehenge's little wheel, Heelstone Ditch was dug by Ezekiel and his ordained Druid royal priesthood twenty-four Elders. A 'great cloudy' description of the Tabernacle's new geographic north location there, Ezekiel, it worked well. At the bottom of Lt-Col. William Hawley's Arc Trench is the Ark still!

Speaking of the Ark's cloud, Moses' Exodus 40

³⁴ Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. ³⁵ And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. ³⁶ And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys: ³⁷ But if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. ³⁸ For the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.

Garry Denke 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wyatt and Noah's Ark

I've removed this edit as 1) it's been debunked more times than I care to mention like here and 2) it's not relevant to the Ark of the Covenant. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 07:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Walter Juvelius

It's not clear if the riots stopped the excavations, or if it was the heavy rain. Either way why did they leave "as planned"? Are there any sources to clear this up?

Parker who?

The section "Walter Juvelius" mentions someone named "Parker", but doesn't make clear who Parker is or what his connection to Juvelius is. This section needs clarifiation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Summary Cleanup!

The first paragraph is kind of a mess- it's not really a summary of the article, and in addition it seems to contain more information which should be in "Description" brain 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Bible

this section includes 3 different types of sources that are all grouped together as if they are the same kind:
1. Tanakh (or Tanach).
2. Jewish books that are not part of the Tanakh, but are written in similar style and shortly after the Tankh.
3. Christian books.

each of these belongs in it's own category, although Christian views on Jewish books which differ from Jewish views should be mentioned in the Christian section. Sections 1 and 2 may be included under one title such as "in Jewish sources".

in addition, I don't see why the painting of the arc by a Christian is shown, but the picture of a model of the arc that was made by Jews who specialize in this is not shown. the picture should be added to the page. The picture on the Hebrew wikipedia

Why precisely should the Jewish view of the Ark be considered more important than a Christian or Muslim view of it?

As a Christian, I am etremely interested in the Jewish approach to and interpretation of the Ark of God. Scutfargus 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Y man 17:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

External Link Removal

I have noticed in several areas which relate to religion and to Biblical topics that links are reduced to a bare minimum; many of the links which remain are innocuous and probably rarely used (e.g., links to the KJV of the Bible). I added the following link with the following verbiage:

• "The Ark of God". Complete verse by verse examination of the Ark of God from a Christian perspective; exclusive to this article is the movement of the Ark from city to city.

What was lacking in this article was the exact movement of the Ark, which requires some logic as well as knowledge of the Bible; and the Ark was interpreted from a Christian persective. The link goes to an article with is nearly 20 pages long, and might be valuable to some, and perhaps not to others.

What I have noticed is, on some topics, like "Michael Moore" and "Global Warming" there are a plethora of links; however, when it comes to the Bible or Biblical topics, the external links are often a fraction of the number of external links found elsewhere. Scutfargus 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this imply someone removed an innocuous link to a perfectly reasonable discussion of the Ark as a Leyden Jar because links to non-religious interpretations are "not allowed" on religious pages? --Phlip

What the?

What happened to the ark from the pyramid photo and the accompanied description of it as a contender? That ark was at least an awesome example of what the biblical art looked like. Whoever deleted it, reinstate it please?  :( 211.30.71.59 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For real?

Is it really "the general consensus of historians" that the Ark was "taken away and destroyed"? I would have assumed that the general consensus of historians is that the Ark story is unsubstantiated myth. Is there any hard evidence that it actually existed? Quite a few of the related stories do stand up to scrutiny. (unsigned)

Pretending that it never existed, or that it does not exist right now, isn't going to really change anything. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Pretending"? If you can come up with objective, non-Biblical evidence of any sort that the "ark" ever actually existed, I have one of Thor's hammers I'd like to sell you. The Ark of the Covenant may have a place in Jewish theology, but not in history or archaeology. Mythology is mythology. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

For anyone interested, I took many of the topics from this article and other sources and created a template. I am not a scholar nor student of the Ark; any input would be sincerely appreciated. - Freechild 06:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

??

So, is there an actual Arc of the Covanant? As in, there is historical proof other than biblical accounts of it existing? Because right now, this article does not make that clear. "It was built at the commandments of God" is not encyclopedic content.

But "According to the Hebrew Bible, it was built at the commandment of God" is encyclopedic. Wikipedia takes no position on whether the Biblical account is true or not. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"So, is there an actual Arc of the Covenant?" Yes, and hopefully the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ("UNESCO") removes the Arc of the Covenant Site from their List, as they did Oman's Arabian Oryx Sanctuary ten days ago, on Thursday, June 28, 2007. The Sanctuary was the first Site ever to be removed from UNESCO’s World Heritage List, because of mineral extraction activity. The Second Coming of the Arc of the Testimony depends on a similiar disallowed extraction activity, and hopefully the World Heritage Committee removes it from their List also. It is 'rumoured' that UNESCO has planned for the Arc of the Covenant Site to be stripped of its World Heritage Status. This will insure that the Second Coming of the Arc of the Testimony to the surface of the earth Works Out quickly. The actual Arc of the Covenant's Second Coming and the actual Christ of all Ages' Second Coming occur simultaneously, on the same day and at the same hour, exactly coincident with the next universal polarity flip (its 2nd day). The last geomagnetic reversal was at the Brunhes Chron ~780,000 years ago, an internationally proposed Middle Pleistocene beginning marker; Stage name: “Ionian” Garry Denke 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Lucifer, the Devil, and Satan (07/09/07) Garry Denke 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Migod. Do your keepers know you've escaped? Why don't you go have a nice lie-down and we'll see that you're returned to your time-share in the Garden of Eden.

"As in, there is historical proof other than biblical accounts of it existing?" Other than a core sample of the Altar of Burnt Offering (5c-5c-3c) housing it, a magnetic survey of it (1984), an electromagnetic (EM) conductivity survey of it (1984), and a seismic refraction survey of it (1984) [1]; no other tangible proof of it being in Arc Trench where it is circled by Heelstone Ditch exists, save and except for: an electrical resistivity survey of it (1994), a ground-penetrating radargram of it (2004), confirmation geophysical surveys of it (2004), and a confirmation core sample of it (2004) [2]. I don't know. I'm not a geophysicist. John

"Because right now, this article does not make that clear." Blame UNESCO for it. Garry Denke 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bible as history

Surely when it is sourced from the bible it should not be classed as history--Monifiethloon 13:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely you don't know anything about history.Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ark appears in the New Testament as Mary?!

This view (even though it is very interesting) has nothing to do with the history of the actual Ark, and should be removed from the "The Babylonians and afterwards" part to a more appropriate location.

To some Catholics, the Ark appears in the man child, Jesus, carried by a woman who is pregnant, Mary. Like the Ark, the man child is carried to Judea and remains there for three months (2 Sam. 6:11; Luke 1:56). Upon his return, Elizabeth asks, "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43). This is a repeat of David asking, "How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9). Finally, just as David danced in the presence of the Ark (2 Sam. 6:14), the babe in Elizabeth's womb (John the Baptist) dances in the presence of God's 'temple' in Mary's womb (Luke 1:41). "Seen in his 'temple' was the Ark of his testament" (Rev. 11:19).

The Ark doesn't appear in the New Testament as Mary. Garry Denke 23:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Ark disappeared from the Solomon's Temple somewhere before or during the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem in the 7th-6th century BCE. In protecting the Ark's location, the prophet Jeremiah wrote:

And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. (Jeremiah 3:16).

Jeremiah's writing that there would be no more need for the Ark saved it for the pregnant Mary's man child. The Second Coming of the Ark is reserved exclusively for Ezekiel, the Son of man. John

The Ancient of days is the Ark in his 'temple'. Garry Denke 01:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. (Daniel 7:9)

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. (Daniel 7:13)

Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. (Daniel 7:22)

The last time the actual Ark was last seen in History.

Finally, in the Book of Revelation the Ark is described as being in the 'temple' of God in heaven (Rev. 11:19). The Ark is last seen in God's 'temple' just before a woman gives birth to the man child (Rev. 12:1-2), both stalked by a dragon and his angels cast to earth (Rev. 12:3-17).

Ark was last seen in the 'temple' of God. (07/11/07) John

All stars, Three days. Garry Denke 09:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

list of variant names

The long list of variant names is needless and seriously detracts from the article. As soon as I saw it, my interest in reading the page ended. I would suggest removing it altogether, or adding a few names to the paragraph above it and deleting the rest.--Gilabrand 19:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Remove more? Garry Denke 14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly was cleaned up? The list is still there.--Gilabrand 07:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cifrangon?

I came across Cifrangon and did a google search of Cifrangon and only came up with this article (in the Wales section). It also appears in Alan Wilson (historian). All contributed by the same user. There are no other sources. Is this a joke? original research? something new? Squids'and'Chips —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:54, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Original research it seems, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cifrangon. If it gets deleted, I'd take the Wales section out of here pretty sharpish too. Benea 09:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Real or not real

This has not been properly addressed above where it was also mentioned.

"In contrast to the view of many historians (who suppose that the Ark was taken away and destroyed)

If nobody can provide a reliable source stating that the majority of historians believe the Arc existed and was destroyed I will remove this sentence. Cheers, Rothery 02:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC).

The destruction of the ark might be a common hypothesis, but there's no way any historian can believe that's what happened without reasonable proof. Even if there exists apocryphal accounts of the destruction of the ark, historians are supposedly trustworthy enough to hesitate to leap to such conclusions. Feel free to further reword the article. Erudecorp ? * 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the ark never existed? That would account for it never being found.--70.92.11.239 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This entry ought to have a section on the history of the ark. Particularly any interest from non-biblical sources. Does anyone have any interest in this?--Mposey82 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, guys, this attitude -- expecting rational historical discussion from religious True Believers -- is never going to get us anywhere. It's like asking for objective proof of the existence of Jesus and being handed quotes from the Bible. There is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, historical or archaeological, for the physical existence of the Ark of the Covenant, or the Commandment Tablets, or the True Cross, or the Crown of Thorns, or ANY of those supposed artifacts. If it depends on "faith," it isn't history.

If anyone ever comes up with an actual artifact from the Temple treasure -- the Menorah, perhaps, as depicted on the Arch of Titus, which IS an objective source -- I'll be the first in line to buy a viewing ticket. But I personally believe there is less chance of anyone finding an actual "ark" than there is of excavating Paul Bunyan's ax. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In an encyclopaedia should we not expect higher standards that those practised by "religious True Believers"? Should not ALL articles be required to be rational and objective? If not the whole concept of an encyclopaedia would seem to be valueless and editors should be allowed to make-up whatever they like without let or hindrance. There would certainly be no point in having any Wikipedia rules or guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.199.146 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Possible reference to the Ark in video games

In the MMORPG Guild Wars an item called the "Ancient Weapon" appears in a certain region of the game. The item bears a strong resemblance, both in appearance and description, to the Ark of the Covenant. Perhaps a note should be added to the article? More information can be found here: Ancient Weapon--24.128.29.59 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Media references

I put the "fictioncruft" template in the media references section. This is basically a (very slightly) glorified trivia section. It's bad enough that so many pop culture pages are suffering from this kind of thing. I don't think we need it here. If no one objects, I'll take it out in a day or two. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

King Hiroshimo?

Can someone please explain the relevance of King Hiroshimo, otherwise it should be deleted--Joshy06x (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Deleted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumours

I must say that I have a problem with the entire section entitled "Rumoured present locations". Surely, mere rumours are not a fit subject for Wikipedia. The entire section seems to consist of rather silly claims, repeated with utter credulity, giving them far more credibility than they deserve. All of this seems to me to come under the heading of WP:FRINGE. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mary as Ark of the New Covenenat

I'm not at all sure this belongs here, although it may (or may not) merit it's own article.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned slightly at Blessed_Virgin_Mary#Immaculate_Conception. Personally, I think it's more relevant to that article than this one. Perhaps the text should be moved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Areed--Doug Weller (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But I think that when someone researching about the ark of covenant.It will have benefit to know what Some people think about it in christianity as Ark of the New Covenant. --Sepehr.mohamadi (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But people searching for the Ark of the Covenant are looking for just that, not a concept of Mary as part of a new covenant. They are not the same thing even if they use similar words. The Ark of the Covenant was supposedly a physical object.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

At least one editor at Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary#Ark_of_the_New_Covenant has commented against this change. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The BVM ahs nothing to do with the Ark fo the Covenent, no matter how much lame theological wrangling the orthodox try to do and it will not be tolerated here. Deal with it and put it in your Mary article. The BVM and Catholicism have as much to do wiht the Ark fo the Covenent as Jellybeans to to lava lamps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorsquiid (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lemba People and Their Drum

Could someone take a look at that new documentary titled "Quest for the Lost Ark"? It aired on the History channel Easter weekend 2008 and included footage as well as details of evidence that impact their drum's candidacy as the Ark of the Covenant. I would do this myself but, I doubt that anything I produce would be of suitable quality in the context of this article. Thanks. 69.112.29.153 (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tudor Parfitt

Some material has been taken from the main article on Tudor Parfitt and added to this article. The problem is, I'm not sure where the material came from and if it is correct. Is it from the documentary or the book, for instance. The documentary may have left out things that are in the book.Doug Weller (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Myth of the Ark

I think earlier comments about whether the Ark is myth are perfectly valid. Many other articles about things in the bible have sections on this, even for Jesus himself. This article only shows the Jewish/Christian/Muslim view and does not address the views of Agnostics, Eastern religions or for that matter, Christians who might not believe in it (Unitarians, perhaps, I don't know). The article should include what this meant to the culture as a myth as part of it.

A previous user considers the following evidence that it exists:

"As in, there is historical proof other than biblical accounts of it existing?" Other than a core sample of the Altar of Burnt Offering (5c-5c-3c) housing it, a magnetic survey of it (1984), an electromagnetic (EM) conductivity survey of it (1984), and a seismic refraction survey of it (1984) [1]; no other tangible proof of it being in Arc Trench where it is circled by Heelstone Ditch exists, save and except for: an electrical resistivity survey of it (1994), a ground-penetrating radargram of it (2004), confirmation geophysical surveys of it (2004), and a confirmation core sample of it (2004) [2]. I don't know. I'm not a geophysicist. John

All this assumes that its location is known, which goes against everything else in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.4.53 (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In Harare museum?

This replica was discovered in a cave by a Swedish German missionary named Harald von Sicard in the 1940s and eventually found its way to the Museum of Human Science in Harare. Sooo... is it still there? The article doesn't say. Somebody please clear this up. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)