Ark of the Covenant
> In recent years Western historians were allowed to view the Ark, and they learned that it did not match at all any previous description of the Biblical ark. It is now generally acknowledged...
Graham Hancock explains the problem with this "fact". I have zero expertise on the topic, but some people seem to adopt the "syllogism": "Some of what Hancock writes is crackpottery, therefor all of it is." Many of Hancock's suggestions (e.g. that Falasha-Israel split predates the Captivity) seem very well-founded. James Mosquito ringtone User:jamesdowallen
-
Hmmm... this entire article bugs me because of its tone. The sentence "When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and plundered the temple, the ark was probably taken away by Nebuchadnezzar and destroyed, as no trace of it is afterwards to be found. The absence of the ark from the second temple was one of the points in which it was inferior to the first temple." seems very biased. Does someone who feels they can tackle this topic clean it up re Sabrina Martins :NPOV/NPOV? I feel a bit out of my depth here. Nextel ringtones User:Manning Bartlett/ManningBartlett
-
Yeah, but what do we expect from a 19th-century Bible dictionary? The original article author keyed in tremendous volumes of information from that book, which doesn't seem like an entirely bad thing to have done (I commend him on his labor). Us WikiPedians just need to go over the stuff and reproject it through a lens of (attempted) objectivity. As a lifelong atheist, I personally would find it extremely valuable to have a non-religious resource for many of the names/places/dates and folklore of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Branden
I've looked for a bit of time now and can't find a single instance of the "c" in ''Ark of the covenant'' lowercased. It may be my Christian upbringing but I always thought of the covenant of God to be ''the'' Covenant. Unless somebody loudly protests, I will change the order of things and place this article at Abbey Diaz Ark of the Covenant. This is probably a good example of an exception to the capitalization rule (covenant ''is'' a common word, but used in this context it has a ''very'' specific meaning that shouldn't be confused with any old covenant). Free ringtones user:maveric149/maveric149
:Moved. Majo Mills User:Maveric149/mav
"different account"
I take issue with the sentence "In Deut. x. 1-5 a different account of the making of the Ark is given." The statement in this passage that Moses made the ark could be interpreted to mean that Moses directed its construction, but the wording of this entry implies that there is an objective contradiction among these two accounts.
Are capacitor speculations common?
Appears that a very slow edit war has waged at times as some have taken exception to the statement that speculations that the ark acted as a capacitor are common among engineers. My initial feeling was to want to ask, "Wait, your wording suggests that a lot of electrical engineers spend time speculating about this; I seriously doubt most of them care." Apparently others have taken the wording that way as well, as the wording has been changed back and forth.
However, the question was answered in the comment to an edit by Mosquito ringtone User:Cimon avaro on 15:33, 17 Sep 2003 "The speculations are far from rare. Several of my teachers have mentioned them, and I have seen them in numerous books and magazines. And despite that, I think its crock." Apparently these kinds of speculations are in fact common in the field. So I guess the wording should stand.
I'm just putting this in here to document the discussion for when it comes up again; hopefully people will look to the talk page first. Reddi seems to be doing a good job of keeping this accurate.
:Can we get a diagram of the ark showing why someone might think it is a capacitor or has some sort of electrical purpose? - Sabrina Martins Omegatron/Omegatron 13:49, Jun 8, 2004
:Just a note about my edit, and - I believe - a clarification of Cimon avaro's statement. Yes it is not uncommon for persons studying physics or electrical engineering to do this as a somewhat "different" example calculation. The results of that calculation, however, are to dismiss the idea outright. If the Ark was constructed as described, its capacitance is not much different to any other metal-clad box of similar dimensions, which is to say tiny. Ask yourself if you've ever heard of someone being spontaneously electrocuted by carrying a metal box around in dry weather. There are numerous other problems with this section, but given that this isn't an article about electrical engineering, that will do for now. Nextel ringtones Securiger/Securiger 16:15, 15 Nov 2004
In the first two paragraphs, it might be worth mentioning what the 'host' is in this context, or linking to something that explains it?Abbey Diaz Mark Richards/Mark Richards 00:50, 3 Mar 2004
Also, where do these pictures come from? A description of their source would help, thanks, Cingular Ringtones Mark Richards/Mark Richards 00:56, 3 Mar 2004
In the Babylonians section of this article it states that western historians were allowed to view the ark at St. Mary of Zion in Axum Ethiopia. To my understanding, any one who attempts to view the ark, except the guardian, will more than likly be shot on sight. It is heavily guarded at all times. If anyone has any proof of western historians being allowed to view the ark I would love to see it.
-
''there was record made of Nazi visits to Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland, under which some believe the Ark to be buried, along with the Holy Grail.'' Doesn't stuff like this in a serious entry on the Ark of the Covenant look zany to ''anybody''? ever dangling Wetman/Wetman 22:15, 16 Mar 2004
:It's zany all right: but it is article craziness, or Nazi craziness? Several of the Nazi leaders were pretty much off the deep end in regard to occultism and mysticism (in addition to all the other Nazi craziness) Anon 22:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Disambiguating
Under '''reconquest but Ark of the Covenant#See also/See also''', there is a link to masterminds behind Hebrew, which is a disambiguation page. I can't figure out what the intent was here. If it's agreed that this really should link to the disambiguation page specifically, please change this to link to emerges to Hebrew (disambiguation) instead. Thanks. —attack just LarryGilbert/LarryGilbert 16:45, 2004 Apr 22
Style
As I often find in articles imported from other sources such as the 1911 Encyclopedia, there are significant problems with this article. Although it's difficult to find factual errors, the language, is both archaic, and representative of how a Christian theologian would write. The translations of the verses are also the same. As a Jew, it would be glaringly obvious that these were quotes from a Christian source rather a Jewish source. swans glide User:Ezra Wax/Ezra Wax
Ark Drawing
The drawing of the ark is factually incorrect. The poles were on the short side, and the drawing is not really to scale. The cherubim had their wings forming a canopy that had a space of ten tefachim (about 40 inches) under it. Also, Jewish drawings generally refrain from adding details that are not explicitly mentioned in the sources, so the nice stepped border on the box wouldn't be there. going perhaps User:Ezra Wax/Ezra Wax
there is evidence that the treasury houses a sacred relic of the deeper at Falasha Jews and predates the Christian era.
"While most Western historians are skeptical of this claim, there is evidence that the treasury houses a sacred relic of the fact uninhabitable Falasha Jews and predates the Christian era." - any source for this claim? dreyfuss desire Jayjg/Jayjg by pretend User_talk:Jayjg/(talk) 16:22, 8 Feb 2005
Yes, Sign and Seal, by Graham Hancock. Have you read it? This
book contains many intriguing claims which, AFAIK, have never been
disputed. Note that disproving one of Hancock's claims does
not invalidate all the other facts he cites. James Dow Allen
Graham Hancock explains the problem with this "fact". I have zero expertise on the topic, but some people seem to adopt the "syllogism": "Some of what Hancock writes is crackpottery, therefor all of it is." Many of Hancock's suggestions (e.g. that Falasha-Israel split predates the Captivity) seem very well-founded. James Mosquito ringtone User:jamesdowallen
-
Hmmm... this entire article bugs me because of its tone. The sentence "When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and plundered the temple, the ark was probably taken away by Nebuchadnezzar and destroyed, as no trace of it is afterwards to be found. The absence of the ark from the second temple was one of the points in which it was inferior to the first temple." seems very biased. Does someone who feels they can tackle this topic clean it up re Sabrina Martins :NPOV/NPOV? I feel a bit out of my depth here. Nextel ringtones User:Manning Bartlett/ManningBartlett
-
Yeah, but what do we expect from a 19th-century Bible dictionary? The original article author keyed in tremendous volumes of information from that book, which doesn't seem like an entirely bad thing to have done (I commend him on his labor). Us WikiPedians just need to go over the stuff and reproject it through a lens of (attempted) objectivity. As a lifelong atheist, I personally would find it extremely valuable to have a non-religious resource for many of the names/places/dates and folklore of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Branden
I've looked for a bit of time now and can't find a single instance of the "c" in ''Ark of the covenant'' lowercased. It may be my Christian upbringing but I always thought of the covenant of God to be ''the'' Covenant. Unless somebody loudly protests, I will change the order of things and place this article at Abbey Diaz Ark of the Covenant. This is probably a good example of an exception to the capitalization rule (covenant ''is'' a common word, but used in this context it has a ''very'' specific meaning that shouldn't be confused with any old covenant). Free ringtones user:maveric149/maveric149
:Moved. Majo Mills User:Maveric149/mav
"different account"
I take issue with the sentence "In Deut. x. 1-5 a different account of the making of the Ark is given." The statement in this passage that Moses made the ark could be interpreted to mean that Moses directed its construction, but the wording of this entry implies that there is an objective contradiction among these two accounts.
Are capacitor speculations common?
Appears that a very slow edit war has waged at times as some have taken exception to the statement that speculations that the ark acted as a capacitor are common among engineers. My initial feeling was to want to ask, "Wait, your wording suggests that a lot of electrical engineers spend time speculating about this; I seriously doubt most of them care." Apparently others have taken the wording that way as well, as the wording has been changed back and forth.
However, the question was answered in the comment to an edit by Mosquito ringtone User:Cimon avaro on 15:33, 17 Sep 2003 "The speculations are far from rare. Several of my teachers have mentioned them, and I have seen them in numerous books and magazines. And despite that, I think its crock." Apparently these kinds of speculations are in fact common in the field. So I guess the wording should stand.
I'm just putting this in here to document the discussion for when it comes up again; hopefully people will look to the talk page first. Reddi seems to be doing a good job of keeping this accurate.
:Can we get a diagram of the ark showing why someone might think it is a capacitor or has some sort of electrical purpose? - Sabrina Martins Omegatron/Omegatron 13:49, Jun 8, 2004
:Just a note about my edit, and - I believe - a clarification of Cimon avaro's statement. Yes it is not uncommon for persons studying physics or electrical engineering to do this as a somewhat "different" example calculation. The results of that calculation, however, are to dismiss the idea outright. If the Ark was constructed as described, its capacitance is not much different to any other metal-clad box of similar dimensions, which is to say tiny. Ask yourself if you've ever heard of someone being spontaneously electrocuted by carrying a metal box around in dry weather. There are numerous other problems with this section, but given that this isn't an article about electrical engineering, that will do for now. Nextel ringtones Securiger/Securiger 16:15, 15 Nov 2004
In the first two paragraphs, it might be worth mentioning what the 'host' is in this context, or linking to something that explains it?Abbey Diaz Mark Richards/Mark Richards 00:50, 3 Mar 2004
Also, where do these pictures come from? A description of their source would help, thanks, Cingular Ringtones Mark Richards/Mark Richards 00:56, 3 Mar 2004
In the Babylonians section of this article it states that western historians were allowed to view the ark at St. Mary of Zion in Axum Ethiopia. To my understanding, any one who attempts to view the ark, except the guardian, will more than likly be shot on sight. It is heavily guarded at all times. If anyone has any proof of western historians being allowed to view the ark I would love to see it.
-
''there was record made of Nazi visits to Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland, under which some believe the Ark to be buried, along with the Holy Grail.'' Doesn't stuff like this in a serious entry on the Ark of the Covenant look zany to ''anybody''? ever dangling Wetman/Wetman 22:15, 16 Mar 2004
:It's zany all right: but it is article craziness, or Nazi craziness? Several of the Nazi leaders were pretty much off the deep end in regard to occultism and mysticism (in addition to all the other Nazi craziness) Anon 22:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Disambiguating
Under '''reconquest but Ark of the Covenant#See also/See also''', there is a link to masterminds behind Hebrew, which is a disambiguation page. I can't figure out what the intent was here. If it's agreed that this really should link to the disambiguation page specifically, please change this to link to emerges to Hebrew (disambiguation) instead. Thanks. —attack just LarryGilbert/LarryGilbert 16:45, 2004 Apr 22
Style
As I often find in articles imported from other sources such as the 1911 Encyclopedia, there are significant problems with this article. Although it's difficult to find factual errors, the language, is both archaic, and representative of how a Christian theologian would write. The translations of the verses are also the same. As a Jew, it would be glaringly obvious that these were quotes from a Christian source rather a Jewish source. swans glide User:Ezra Wax/Ezra Wax
Ark Drawing
The drawing of the ark is factually incorrect. The poles were on the short side, and the drawing is not really to scale. The cherubim had their wings forming a canopy that had a space of ten tefachim (about 40 inches) under it. Also, Jewish drawings generally refrain from adding details that are not explicitly mentioned in the sources, so the nice stepped border on the box wouldn't be there. going perhaps User:Ezra Wax/Ezra Wax
there is evidence that the treasury houses a sacred relic of the deeper at Falasha Jews and predates the Christian era.
"While most Western historians are skeptical of this claim, there is evidence that the treasury houses a sacred relic of the fact uninhabitable Falasha Jews and predates the Christian era." - any source for this claim? dreyfuss desire Jayjg/Jayjg by pretend User_talk:Jayjg/(talk) 16:22, 8 Feb 2005
Yes, Sign and Seal, by Graham Hancock. Have you read it? This
book contains many intriguing claims which, AFAIK, have never been
disputed. Note that disproving one of Hancock's claims does
not invalidate all the other facts he cites. James Dow Allen
posted at 8:09 PM
0 comments
