Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ark of the Covenant
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 16 of 74 (373028)
12-30-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
12-29-2006 2:31 PM


the amazing Wyatt
Brian:
You may wish to check out Ron wyatt's site, he claims to have seen the Ark and photographed it, but the pictures didn't develop properly!
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/ark-of-the-covenant.htm
Wyatt found all kinds of things, didn't he? The little ark, the big ark, the cross, Pharoah's chariots...
Too bad that, coming back, he could never get any of it through customs.
__

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 12-29-2006 2:31 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 2:22 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 17 of 74 (373030)
12-30-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Archer Opteryx
12-30-2006 2:14 PM


Re: the amazing Wyatt
Archer Opterix writes:
Wyatt found all kinds of things, didn't he? The little ark, the big ark, the cross, Pharoah's chariots...
I heard somewhere that there are enough "authentic" pieces of the True CrossTM to make a full-size replica of Noah's Ark.
I wonder if there are as many little arks as big ones?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-30-2006 2:14 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 74 (373042)
12-30-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2006 1:34 PM


I saw a special about the Ark on television one night. It had the same information, as far as I can remember. In particular about the church where the Ark now supposedly resides.
To be honest, I think these people in this town are trying to get attention. They want people to think they have the Ark, just so they can stand back and go "neener nee! You can't see it" and stick out their tongues!
And besides, why so much hype over the Ark? Would finding it really validate God or not in any way?
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 1:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-31-2006 11:58 AM Jon has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 19 of 74 (373057)
12-30-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
12-30-2006 12:25 PM


Re: The first Temple
quote:
But have you ever noticed that detractors of the Bible claim that everything is a tale? Or if it isn't entirely a tale, its greatly embellished? That's a whole lot of tales? One would reason that out of so many tales coming from the same region, that at least a few of them are actually true.
But have you ever noticed that detractors of the Bahavigad Gita claim that everything is a tale? Or if it isn't entirely a tale, its greatly embellished? That's a whole lot of tales? One would reason that out of so many tales coming from the same region, that at least a few of them are actually true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2006 12:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-31-2006 12:05 PM nator has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 74 (373061)
12-30-2006 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
12-30-2006 12:25 PM


Re: The first Temple
One would reason that out of so many tales coming from the same region, that at least a few of them are actually true.
Why?
Why would the fact that there are lots of tales imply that they are true?
Does that mean that the Norse tales of the Race of Asgard must be true?
How about the Greek or Roman Mythology?
The number of tales tells us nothing except that there are many tales.
While there might well be some physical thing like the Ark, there is absolutely no indication that it is anything more than another box.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2006 12:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-31-2006 12:26 PM jar has replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 74 (373074)
12-30-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
12-29-2006 1:34 PM


The plot thickens.
Juggs writes:
What are your thoughts on this?
My thoughts are that we:
1) cast Tom Hanks as the Levitical priest who guards the ark;
2) cast Angelina Jolie as Hanks love interest, who really just wants to get some of the gold so she can adopt a few disadvantaged children;
3) While involve in base fornication beneath the stand that the ark rests on, Hanks looks up (he's the bottom in this relationship) and sees a map inscribed on the bottom of the ark;
4)...perhaps other posters can help with this 'based on real events' plot line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-29-2006 1:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 22 of 74 (373165)
12-31-2006 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hyroglyphx
12-30-2006 12:11 PM


Re: The first Temple
My friend has asked me to help him out at his bar today so I will post a more detailed reply tomorrow or tuesday.
But I feel I need to comment on the house of David in the Mesha Stele.
It is debatable if it even mentions House of David, and if it did it would more than likely be a dynasty rather than a place.
The House of David cannot be Solomon's Temple as God strictly forbid David to build it, the job was given to Solomon.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-30-2006 12:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 74 (373180)
12-31-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jon
12-30-2006 3:11 PM


Where is the Ark.... really?
To be honest, I think these people in this town are trying to get attention. They want people to think they have the Ark, just so they can stand back and go "neener nee! You can't see it" and stick out their tongues!
You may very well be right. Personally, the fact that the Ark is no longer around is probably a good thing. I mean, we see how people act when what looks like the image of Jesus appears on the side of burrito. Imagine how much more they'd act like if the Ark is around.
If it really is there, they are doing a disservice to their own community by broadcasting that information. I thought the whole point to taking it there clandestinely was to be, oh, I don't know... clandestine? Why now all the fanfare?
And besides, why so much hype over the Ark? Would finding it really validate God or not in any way?
No, it sure wouldn't. Well, maybe not unless people started dying because they looked at it or touched it. That might convince a few people in close proximity.
But at the end of the day, even if they had the real Ark, it'll just be the same argument rehashed over again and again. There will always be someone who doesn't believe it. Kind of like these conspiracy theorists who, after the man was dead for five minutes, concocted some vagary about how Saddam is still really alive. That's how some people are about everything. Because unless they were there when the Ark was forged, some people would prefer that such a thing was never actually made.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 12-30-2006 3:11 PM Jon has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 74 (373182)
12-31-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nator
12-30-2006 4:40 PM


Re: The first Temple
But have you ever noticed that detractors of the Bahavigad Gita claim that everything is a tale? Or if it isn't entirely a tale, its greatly embellished? That's a whole lot of tales? One would reason that out of so many tales coming from the same region, that at least a few of them are actually true.
Nope. I've never met one Bhagavad Gita detractor in my life, which is likely why I've never noticed such a thing.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 12-30-2006 4:40 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 12-31-2006 7:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 28 by nator, posted 12-31-2006 7:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 74 (373183)
12-31-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
12-30-2006 4:50 PM


Re: The first Temple
Why would the fact that there are lots of tales imply that they are true?
There is always a measure of truth in any religion, even if much or most is embellished. Concerning things like the Ark, King David, either of the two Temples, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, etc: What is the likelihood that all of those do not have their foundation in actual human history? Believing in their existence, or once existence, doesn't in any way infer that God must somehow be real if these items are too. The bible is a historical document that's proven itself reliable for its historical value. If one were to claim that it is not a reliable spiritual document, that would be a matter of debate. But there isn't much reason to challenge the historicity of the Ark. Its one thing to challenge to challenge "Chariots of fire in the sky," or "talking donkeys," but its another thing entirely to challenge the ark or the Temple?
Does that mean that the Norse tales of the Race of Asgard must be true?
No, it means some things in Norse religion, particularly the people, are probably rooted in truth.
While there might well be some physical thing like the Ark, there is absolutely no indication that it is anything more than another box.
I agree with this. Like I said, even supposing the Ethiopians have the real Ark in their possession, there's always going to be someone to challenge it, whether their criticisms are founded or unfounded is the only question we should deal with. Suppose they have an exact replica. Afterall, the exact measurements and description is provided in the book of Exodus. Even if a replica Ark dated back to the time of Moses , there might no way to know for certain if its the actual Ark or just a replica. Unless, of course, people's faces start to melt like the Nazi's in Indiana Jones. That might sway my decision.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 4:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 12-31-2006 12:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 74 (373186)
12-31-2006 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
12-31-2006 12:26 PM


Re: The first Temple
The bible is a historical document that's proven itself reliable for its historical value.
Not really.
The Bible is a historic document in the sense that it gives us a glimpse into the mythos of a people. As such it is a history of how they viewed themselves and others at given moments in history.
But so far it has been shown to be a very unreliable history when compared to reality.
The Creation never happened as described.
The Flood never happened as described.
The Exodus never happened as described.
The Conquest of Canaan never happened as described.
The Tower of Babel never happened as described.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah never happened as described.
There is no indications so far that there was ever a Kingdom of Israel or Judah as described in the Bible.
So far there is little indication that there was a King David, or Solomon.
Concerning things like the Ark, King David, either of the two Temples, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, etc: What is the likelihood that all of those do not have their foundation in actual human history?
Probably about the same likelihood as the Arthurian Legends.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-31-2006 12:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-01-2007 3:06 PM jar has replied
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2007 12:55 PM jar has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 74 (373232)
12-31-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
12-31-2006 12:05 PM


Re: The first Temple
double post
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-31-2006 12:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 74 (373233)
12-31-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
12-31-2006 12:05 PM


Re: The first Temple
But have you ever noticed that detractors of the Bahavigad Gita claim that everything is a tale? Or if it isn't entirely a tale, its greatly embellished? That's a whole lot of tales? One would reason that out of so many tales coming from the same region, that at least a few of them are actually true.
quote:
Nope. I've never met one Bhagavad Gita detractor in my life, which is likely why I've never noticed such a thing.
Er, are you purposely missing the point, or did you just...miss the point?
I mean, are you saying that you believe everything that is stated in the Bahavigad gita is probably true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-31-2006 12:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-01-2007 3:10 PM nator has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 74 (373452)
01-01-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
12-31-2006 12:40 PM


Re: The first Temple
The Bible is a historic document in the sense that it gives us a glimpse into the mythos of a people. As such it is a history of how they viewed themselves and others at given moments in history.
But so far it has been shown to be a very unreliable history when compared to reality.
The Creation never happened as described.
The Flood never happened as described.
The Exodus never happened as described.
The Conquest of Canaan never happened as described.
The Tower of Babel never happened as described.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah never happened as described.
There is no indications so far that there was ever a Kingdom of Israel or Judah as described in the Bible.
So far there is little indication that there was a King David, or Solomon.
I enjoy every one of these topics listed immensely, however, my thread has already derailed enough as it is. If you'd like to discuss these other aspects, please open a new thread.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 12-31-2006 12:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 01-01-2007 3:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 01-01-2007 6:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 74 (373455)
01-01-2007 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
12-31-2006 7:06 PM


Re: The first Temple
Er, are you purposely missing the point, or did you just...miss the point?
I mean, are you saying that you believe everything that is stated in the Bahavigad gita is probably true?
I'm stating that I have little knowledge on Bahavigad Gita. I can't make fair assessments or pronouncements on things that I know little about. Conversely, I believe many of the Bible's most scathing critics only have a nominal familiarity with it, thus rendering their opinion of it null and void.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 12-31-2006 7:06 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 01-01-2007 10:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024