location of ark of covinent?

You have to check out this guys research regarding this topic.
www.wyattarchaeology.com...

Seems pretty convincing. I also don't know if this is the right forum, if it needs to be moved please do so.

Originally posted by fishmaster
You have to check out this guys research regarding this topic.
www.wyattarchaeology.com...

Seems pretty convincing. I also don't know if this is the right forum, if it needs to be moved please do so.

Ron Wyatt was proven a fraud years ago. Run, don't walk.

Ron Wyatt the scam artist

I love the part where good ol' Ron tries to snag a photograph and it turns out foggy . Hell i'll go there myself and take the picture if his hands are too shaky with emotion.

If it stil lexists and people know of it's whereabouts they are probly somewhere along the south of Khartoum Sudan following the blue and white nile rivers. Most likely it was destroyed by the babylons

Its in Axum in Etheopia in a church gaurded by a single gaurdian.... mmm I believe Makla or something similiar is his name... brought there in reference to Malik in the old testament.

its well known.... even the church admits its there only he has been in the repositary though till he dies then someone else takes over for life.... its there...Reason im so sure abundant Historical links, on the ground artifacts and writings/documents all tying in with current modern day claims that have a long history.

Its there simple as.


Regards

Elf

jahtruth.net...

jahtruth.net...

100777.com...

Along with the Stone of Destiny the Ark was taken to Ireland, and later on to Scottland.

The Ancient Family of the Scottish Great Marischal has kept it in hiding for over 800 years.

Originally posted by Linux
I love the part where good ol' Ron tries to snag a photograph and it turns out foggy

. Hell i'll go there myself and take the picture if his hands are too shaky with emotion.

His hands should be pretty damn steady at this point. He's dead.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Its in Axum in Etheopia in a church gaurded by a single gaurdian.... mmm I believe Makla or something similiar is his name... brought there in reference to Malik in the old testament.

its well known.... even the church admits its there only he has been in the repositary though till he dies then someone else takes over for life.... its there...

They certainly claim it's there, yet they don't allow anyone to see it, not even in pictures taken by the guy who guards it. This sounds like pious fraud.

I wonder how they created the false archeological evidense for a large militarised jewish sttlement on the shores of the local lake...good 'pious' Fraud to affect the earth mounds from the time the ark was last mentioned in the bible.
Also rather odd as the knights Templar (who dug most of Jerusalem before any other person/organisation was even looking for it in from the west) spent a lot of time there looking for it over a thousand years ago. Styrange how in the 1884 Famin the israel ov fley out Thousands of the 'the Lost Tribe' from the area. Strange how the locals still strap small arks to their head in their ceromonies, strange how the Gaurdian is the longest known continual lineage in a religeous sense outside of Tibet/Parts of Mongolia...

Just Pious fraud eh? or a unconvinced by the facts closed pointof view?

Regards Elf

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
I wonder how they created the false archeological evidense for a large militarised jewish sttlement on the shores of the local lake...good 'pious' Fraud to affect the earth mounds from the time the ark was last mentioned in the bible.
Also rather odd as the knights Templar (who dug most of Jerusalem before any other person/organisation was even looking for it in from the west) spent a lot of time there looking for it over a thousand years ago. Styrange how in the 1884 Famin the israel ov fley out Thousands of the 'the Lost Tribe' from the area. Strange how the locals still strap small arks to their head in their ceromonies, strange how the Gaurdian is the longest known continual lineage in a religeous sense outside of Tibet/Parts of Mongolia...

Just Pious fraud eh? or a unconvinced by the facts closed point of view?

Regards Elf

The single most important fact missing here is that there were TWO ARKS.

When Moses first brought down from mount Zion the Tablets with the Ten Commandments inscribed by the finger of God he smashed them against the ground at the sight of his people worshiping Pagan gods.

Later a second set was re-created.

A Golden Ark was built for the divine tablets, and a wooden one for the replica.

Long ago I saw a video of the Ethiopian Ark being carried in some sort of religious parade.

Of course it was covered up with some cloth, but you could clearly see that it was not the size of the Biblical Ark.

My impression is that if they have an Ark in Africa it is the wooden one that has long ago decayed.

The real Ark went to Ireland, and later on to Scottland.

They carry the wooden Ark in the ceremony once a year, however it is a relpica and the jewish wooden arks are indeed box dressings not ornate.... like the minature ones the wear on their foreheads.

The Bible also states in all its entirety one ark. There is no mention of two arks (as in the moses ones) anywhere in the bible sources please?

Archangel I see nothing coming even to a 10th of the even circumstantial eveidence for the location in Etheopia of the ark rather than Scot/Ireland, thats without the actual other 'hard' non circumstantial excavations, historical documents, and the fact of the actual church he yearly ceremony and its claims.

in addition I refer to the bible, one of the bits describing jesus supposed return...

"All inhabitants of the world and dwellers on the earth, when he [Messiah] lifts up a banner on the mountains, you see it; and when he blows a trumpet [of victory], you hear it. For so the Lord said to me, 'I will take My rest, and I will look from My dwelling place."

you get the gist? a supposedly very important time for the son of the designer of the Ark.... 3 verses later :

"In that time a present will be brought to the Lord of hosts from a people tall and smooth of skin [Ethiopians, according to verse 1] . . . to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, to Mount Zion."

Isiah verse 3-4 and V7

Now what Present might that be that ethopia could offer him?

Really look up etheopia on a map.... look at the surrounding countries egypt, isreal etc... do some research honestly the evidense is nearly overwhelming...

MischeviosulyBurningIncense

Regards

Elf

Edit for bible source


[edit on 10-12-2005 by MischeviousElf]

The Ark of the covenant is a interdemensional mailbox for delivering messages (WORDS) to the past from the future.

Doubt this? Then what else that is not a weapon could achieve what the ark is capable of achieving? "For no army that possesses the ark can be overcome by an enemy". Do you think God would choose to provide mankind a weapon when God knew man is primarily a slave to fear and the hate that fear creates?

However, the one who is within the vicinity of the Ark of the Covenant must be devoid of all fear, devoid of all hate, and still have the intentions of servitude to all.

A single man, because one and one alone is all that should be, to know such things that exist, and to know not fear nor hate, makes for a soul that is not understood by mortals who are "Self Pre(before)servation(serve)". Self first, then serve.

The Ark of the Covenant was used hastely with fear. It was lost when this happened. Many exist now, and the true ark of the covenant is in you.

Don't worry about the how or why, nor the details. Just know it is within.

What do you find convincing from his story of seeing the ark underground beneath of blood?

Wyatt said that the ark would be unvieled by him 'soon', when the time was right. He died a few years ago, no unveiling.

Wyatt also hoaxed a lot of people into thinking that he found Noah's Ark, he'd even take money from them to go on tours of the site with them.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
The Ark of the covenant is a interdemensional mailbox for delivering messages (WORDS) to the past from the future.

Doubt this? Then what else that is not a weapon could achieve what the ark is capable of achieving? "For no army that possesses the ark can be overcome by an enemy".

Why is it not more plausible that if it existed at all, it was just an ordinary box of some kind, and mythology about it grew after it was lost, gradually making it more ornate and more powerful as the stories were exxagerated a little more on each retelling?

Originally posted by spamandham

Why is it not more plausible that if it existed at all, it was just an ordinary box of some kind, and mythology about it grew after it was lost, gradually making it more ornate and more powerful as the stories were exxagerated a little more on each retelling?

Guess it depends entirely on how you view humanity.

And how you view humanity is always held up to comparison with that which you know is true: Yourself, and how you think.

Therefore I now know you gradually make your stories a little more ornate and more powerful and exagerated a little more on each of your retellings. How do I know this? Because this is how you view humanity, therefore this is how you view yourself.

If you are not compairing all you know about humanity to all you know about yourself, then what are you compairing it to? You are a self proclaimed atheist, therefore you must be compairing humanity to yourself, and all you know about yourself is :

. .. . . .. . . .. . and mythology about it grew after it was lost, gradually making it more ornate and more powerful as the stories were exxagerated a little more on each retelling?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Therefore I now know you gradually make your stories a little more ornate and more powerful and exagerated a little more on each of your retellings. How do I know this? Because this is how you view humanity, therefore this is how you view yourself.

I may indeed do that, but it doesn't change the fact that many others do the same thing. This is how legends and myths form. Haven't you ever played the game where a story is whispered from person to person and then said aloud by the last person in the chain? It almost always has more details than when it started, and the details are almost always more fantastic than the original. Most of us humans behave in predictable ways, and that includes drawing attention to oneself by telling a more interesting story. Most people do this without even realizing it.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If you are not compairing all you know about humanity to all you know about yourself, then what are you compairing it to? You are a self proclaimed atheist, therefore you must be compairing...

This whole "you're an atheist thus this is how you think/or don't think" is starting to get old. It's incredibly naive and arrogant. I try my best not to stereotype supernaturalists, but you're not making it easy.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by spamandham]

www.selamta.net...

Perhaps one of these fine gentlemen take care of our ark.

Originally posted by fishmaster
www.selamta.net...

Perhaps one of these fine gentlemen take care of our ark.

According to the caretaker's story, Solomon was the great king the Bible describes. Yet we know from archaeology that isn't true. Thus, it seems unlikely that the ark in question is the "real" ark. It doesn't seem reasonable that fake stories of the greatness of Solomon would grow up both in Cannan and in Ethiopia, although it's certainly possible the ark story was made up after Solomon mythology. But then, it still isn't the "real" ark.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by spamandham]

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Therefore I now know you gradually make your stories a little more ornate and more powerful and exagerated a little more on each of your retellings. How do I know this? Because this is how you view humanity, therefore this is how you view yourself.

I may indeed do that, but it doesn't change the fact that many others do the same thing.

Like you, a slave to their fears.

This is how legends and myths form.

What legends? What myths? If you were there to prove they could not have been, you'd bring proof instead of your opinions to debunk billions of people who walked here before you. Your opinions based on a mind that is not 1 verses the billions of minds that preceded you. Who carries more weight in the arguement? Obviously you do, because you know better than the billions that have preceded you. Fancy that.

Haven't you ever played the game where a story is whispered from person to person and then said aloud by the last person in the chain?

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Of course it is easier to yeild to your fears than to admit to yourself that you are the weakest link and you are the reason the chain faultered. However, I have done this in a class of 30 in a leadership class in the Air Force. We were given twelve words, and only 2 people could be in the room at a time to relay. We did produce a end result that was the 12 words we started from, but I admit it was on our third attempt. We could not go home until we got it right, which gave us all some motivation to get it right. Hopefully our cells don't suffer the same effects, as the chain usually consists of billions. Wouldn't it be nice if we could learn from the particulars of our own consciousness?

It almost always has more details than when it started, and the details are almost always more fantastic than the original.

I'm sure the details are, considering people's minds are subject ot their fears and prejudices, which serves as a catalyst to them extending their will and opinion on everything they touch, and then everything they touch with their fear and opinion only produces an end result of what is not what the truth began as. The links are to blame, not the message. Why hate the message because of the messenger's fears manifesting in your reality?

Most of us humans behave in predictable ways, .... ..

You can enhance the level of how efficiently you can predict thier behaviors by understanding your own intentions and what motivates them. Peoples actions and behaviors will become known to you because of your love and empathy for their truth, only if you have enough empathy and love for your own truth.

Most people do this without even realizing it.

Maybe (perhaps) even more than you currently perceive.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If you are not compairing all you know about humanity to all you know about yourself, then what are you compairing it to? You are a self proclaimed atheist, therefore you must be compairing...

This whole "you're an atheist thus this is how you think/or don't think" is starting to get old.

Then choose to look at it from my perspective. I know and accept yours as is, you do not know nor accept mine as is.

It's incredibly naive and arrogant.

I try my best not to stereotype supernaturalists, but you're not making it easy.

Trying not to stereotype, and having decided never to do so are 2 totally different things, now aren't they?

"naive and arrogant" is stereotyping. And again, these are the conclusions of a mind subject to the law of association with the seed of all thought being associated to "Me first because I am self before I serve anything or anyone" AKA "Self Preservation". Therefore it is your opinion that I'm naive and arrogant, which (by choice) for me is not the truth.

At one point in my life I made the conscious decision to be a person who will run into a burning building to save someone I havn't even ever met. I consciously chose to serve strangers. Naive is where hope and faith are not. Arrogant is only a term fear and hate can comprehend.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

This is how legends and myths form.

What legends? What myths? If you were there to prove they could not have been, you'd bring proof instead of your opinions to debunk billions of people who walked here before you.

Many legends and muths are verifiably false. Snopes is filled with them. Some are quite ancient, yet we have a historical thread that shows them growing in extravagance over time, such as Santa Claus.

If you wish to deny that there are such things as legends and myths, or if you wish to reject the idea that they can form gradually as stories are repeatedly embelished during retelling, that's up to you. These things are obvious enough I think to be unworthy of discussion. The question in my mind is not whether or not this happens, but whether or not that is what happened in regard to the ark of the covenant.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Your opinions based on a mind that is not 1 verses the billions of minds that preceded you. Who carries more weight in the arguement? Obviously you do, because you know better than the billions that have preceded you. Fancy that.

I didn't even claim that the stories of the ark were greatly exagerated, I just asked the question as to why that isn't a reasonable assumption.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
However, I have done this in a class of 30 in a leadership class in the Air Force. We were given twelve words, and only 2 people could be in the room at a time to relay. We did produce a end result that was the 12 words we started from, but I admit it was on our third attempt.

So you know from your own experience that this does in fact happen, yet you seem to be calling the concept into question nonetheless?!

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
The links are to blame, not the message. Why hate the message because of the messenger's fears manifesting in your reality?

We don't have a priori knowledge of the original message. All we have is what the links have reported. Part of the goal is to determine whether or not the message we have received from the links resembles the original or not.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Then choose to look at it from my perspective. I know and accept yours as is, you do not know nor accept mine as is.

I don't recall claiming to understand you better than you understand yourself, nor claiming there are regions of knowledge you can not have insight into as a result of your beliefs.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
"naive and arrogant" is stereotyping.

No it isn't. It's a judgement about you specifically as a result of what you've claimed. It isn't a judgement about you because you are a member of some group.

[edit on 13-12-2005 by spamandham]