Talk:Ark of the Covenant/Archive 1

Question

Why are writings from the Quran are included? The Ark is Jewish! Islam has nothing to do with it. I'll keep deleting it.

So was Jesus old boy, but if you deleted him I'm sure a couple of christians might get a bit miffed, or if you have issues because it is Jewish should we therefore not delete the references about the bible as well? In all seriousness, the ownership of the Ark isn't in question, but this section shows that it was referenced in other religeous texts. Please don't forget this article also mentions it was in Indiana Jones and in a computer game, and I for one believe the Quran references are far more valid. Please give a valid reason for removing this part of the article or people like myself will keep putting it back, discourse is by far an away the best option, and removes the need for this continual petty reverting. Regards. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Ark is a Jewish symbol. If so, maybe I need to include things against Muhammad at his page? Truth is truth. I have to say that putting Islam where it has nothing to do with the subject is a politization of this site. The same will be said if I'll write revisionist interpretation of the Quran, however, that would not be accepted. Any way, the Quran is not clear on this subject. And if you want to appease Muslims that's not the way. And if you are a Muslim - remove it if you have any sensitivity to other's national symbols. Because Islam has nothing to do with the Ark. And about Indiana Jones - I won't bother answering this claim. You know very well what's the difference between the two.

P.S. The Ark is mentioned far more than twice in the books of Prophets. It is mentioned at Samuel, Kings I, Kings II and much more places. Who is the one who wrote it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.115.29.209 (talk • contribs) .

Truth is truth indeed. And the truth is that whether you like it or not, the Ark is relevant to Islam. It doesn't matter whether or not the Quran is correct regarding the Ark. It's not about "appeasing" anyone. --RLent 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. If the Ark is mentioned in the Quran, why can this fact not be mentioned on Wikipedia? It was validly sourced to the verse in the Quran where it is mentioned, and I think it should be restored to the article, along with the note that some Muslims, notwithstanding the Quran quote, do not recognise it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Using inflammatory terms like appeasement, and asking about someone's religious beliefs will not further your argument with me. I will ask you one question, is the Ark mentioned or recognised in the Qur'an? It's in the article now, and will remain there until this is discussed and we have consensus, one way or the other. Let's keep it civil and trust me it will get resolved. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Old discussions

Somewhere I heard that four Rabbis from Jerusalem made a trip to Ethiopia, recoevered the ark, took it on a plane back to Jerusalem while standing up and still carrying it, and that it resides there now. I'm not sure WHERE I heard this however. Maybe a history channel special.

---

> 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 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 NPOV? I feel a bit out of my depth here. -- 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 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). --maveric149

Moved. --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 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? - Omegatron 13:49, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

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. Securiger 16:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ask yourself if you've ever tried to carry around a conductive box charging it [though electrostatic action [silk blowin in the wind rubbing against the gold; this is the manner the hebrews carried it around (shrouded)]] in dry weather and wonder if you'd be spontaneously electrocuted by carrying a specially designed box around?

As I recall is was covered in badger skins and not in silk. My memory could be failing me though, but it certainly wasn't being rubbed by silk. I also seem to remember it being under several layers of cloth. At anyrate, the poles that were used to carry it were gold plated to I think, so the priests would have been touching them, and they were touching the gold plated Ark.....

---

In the first two paragraphs, it might be worth mentioning what the 'host' is in this context, or linking to something that explains it?Mark Richards 00:50, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, where do these pictures come from? A description of their source would help, thanks, Mark Richards 00:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

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? Wetman 22:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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 See also, there is a link to 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 Hebrew (disambiguation) instead. Thanks. —LarryGilbert 16:45, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

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. 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. Ezra Wax

there is evidence that the treasury houses a sacred relic of the 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 Falasha Jews and predates the Christian era." - any source for this claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

The idea of an ancient group of Ethiopian Jews has been relegated to scholarly sidelines. The group seems to date from the 14th century. In fact, the use of Falasha appears to be suspect. While there are numerous sources of the Jewish Felasha Queen Gudit, it's pretty clear that while she was not Christian, it's not at all certain she was Jewish and she was not part of a broader group of Felasha. See Beta Israel for DNA and scholarly consensus. I'll get rid of the reference in the article. - BanyanTree 04:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tripe

To my way of thinking, this whole article needs to be rewritten and considerably shortened. Many things are stated as fact when clearly they are fiction. The whole section on capacitors looks like twaddle of a high order. If one has faith, then one does not need to rely on primitive batteries to produce a credible and fatal blast smiting thousands at once. Pete 22:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1900s

It is stated that Tesla made his assertions in the [[1900s], but do we mean between 1900 and 1909 or do we mean the 20th century? Either is possible given Tesla's time-period, but I'm guessing it should be 20th century.

It was a 1915 article. So the 20th century would be correct. JDR 14:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Electrical operation?

I would have to agree; if any of it is to remain, it should at least be sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)

The parts are referenced. TLC is a reputable source. And Nikola Tesla's note of the topic is referenced. JDR 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry Connection?

I know i'm going to be slammed here for this but shouldn't we explain the masonic connection better than an allusion to the Roslyn Chapel? After all the United Grand Lodge of England does have it on its Coat of Arms (looking fairly similar to the drawing actually, but in 2D). Lets at least add a link at the bottom - maybe Masonic Mysticism?

Inquiry of operation

The [Inquiry of operation] is cited and should be included in the article... [Removed citation and contents; inserting it below] William M. Connolley seems hell bent on removing referenced material. JDR 09:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The section you are replacing seems POV. You can't state that research indicates that the ark performed as an electric circuit, or whatever. This sentence is either POV or grammatically wrong or both

Historical inquiry concerning the Ark of the Covenant indicates that it operated as an electrical circuit have been held by some

Unless you can get the whole section cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of of NPOV and grammar, I think the existing text is sufficient. In particular, you use the word "inquiry" several times in strange way. Your phrase "inquiry of operation" doesn't even make any sense. Jdavidb 13:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The section had been NPOV for months.

There is investigation into the ark which suggests that the ark performed as an electric circuit. This is stated in the TLC link.

How is the sentence POV?

It may be grammatically wrong, improve it if you can.

the sentence "Historical inquiry concerning the Ark of the Covenant indicates that it operated as an electrical circuit have been held by some" is changed to "The design of the ark suggests the possible generation of an electric charge and, thus, facilitate an electric discharge between the cherubs."

I'll go over the section and clean it up for grammar, but it is [and was before the more recent edits] NPOV (the material is referenced/sourced).

The existing text on and before 11 November 2004 was NPOV (had been for months). The significant change of the version 13 November 2004 was semi NPOV, but ignored the distributed model . The last balanced edit was 23 June 2005 (as to addressing all the models concerned). JDR 14:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Reddi (JDR) is, sadly, a notorious tesla-phile pseudoscience pusher. Sigh. William M. Connolley 15:10:24, 2005-07-20 (UTC).

WMC, this is not about so-called "tesla-phile pseudoscience". Go read the earlier conversation here in talk. Go view the TLC website. Read a bit and get a clue. Trying to label me as something or another does nothing for your edits (and is a indication that your cannot put forward valid points). JDR 15:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This is nothing but tesla-phile pseudoscience. You have, sadly, a long history of pushing psuedoscience, and asserting otherwise won't change that. William M. Connolley 17:22:12, 2005-07-20 (UTC).

This isn't "pseudoscience". It's an engineering topic. I've tried to keep this article NPOV (balance and non-partisan) and accurate (eg., verifiable). Teachers have mentioned this and it is mentioned in books and magazines. A respectable network cable channel also the information. Your attacks on me does not change that simple fact. JDR 17:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I care a lot less about the pseudo-science aspect and a lot more about the fact that sentences in the section don't even parse. Reddi, JDR, or whoever you are (why can't you stick with one name?), don't put it back in until it's fixed and approved here on the talk page.

I also care about the principle that Wikipedia does not include original research. If this is your big idea, it doesn't belong here, no matter how many references you have. Let somebody else put it in, if it is really significant. If you are the only person on the planet who wants to put it in, it is not significant. Jdavidb 17:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This isn't my big idea; it facts. The full vetting does belong here. If wikipedia ignores reputable references, then the goal of wikipedia is in peril; also, citing fringe sources and ignoring mainstream sources is not a NPOV. The above information is significant. I am not the only person who wants to put it in (see the above comments; also early edits kept the information in). I will readd the referenced material at a later time, though. JDR 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Exodus 25:11–15 says:

And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about. And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold. And thou shalt put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them. The staves shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it.

It seems gold-plated poles inserted through gold rings which touch the gold plating would conduct a charge quite well, am I right? How did Tesla and his devotees explain the surprising lack of electrocuted ark-carriers? —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The pole are "overlain" with gold. This decorative covering may have had places to hold on to it without this danger, but that is a guess on my part.

The easier and simpliest explianation would be that the holders were not grounded out. There were many rules and regulations to handling the Ark and in the ark-bearers dress. Much like a bird on a wire, the ark-carriers were insulated from the dangers (ex., the sandels sole may have insulated them from the ground; or, the clothes themselves insulated them). People that didn't follow the prescribed dress and customs were "struck down" (one of isrealities didn't follow the rules (I would suppose he was ground out) when the Ark was "charged" and was subsequently killed ("struck down"); I'll come back with the exact passages of this). JDR 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This page is not in a NPOV state because of Jdavidb and WMC's recent editing. The above discussed reasons are cited. JDR 17:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

citing fringe sources and ignoring mainstream sources is not a NPOV. JDR 15:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

All I have done is remove material you kept adding, so if there's an NPOV problem, I hardly see how it can be as a result of my editing, unless, of course, you equate your own POV with NPOV. Jdavidb 20:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No Jdavidb. Citing fringe sources (eg., Erich von Däniken) and ignoring mainstream sources (eg., The Learning Channel, Louis Ginzberg, and Nikola Tesla) is not a NPOV. You have removed the mainstream sources on the operation of the Ark. NPOV is to present the facts, perferably from mainstream sources. Fringe sources can be cited, but the majority of the information should be from credible and reliable sources. TLC and Ginzberg are two such references.

Your religious POV (as you plainly state on your page, as of today) blinds you on how your edits are. This is a scientific historical analysis. The mainstream sources present this (TLC: science; Ginsnzberg: historical). Tesla also mentions this and, because his electrical engineering skills were the best in the 19th and 20th century, should be taken with some wieght.

Sincerely, JDR 14:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Vendyl_Jones Here is a problem....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendyl_Jones

that page says Vendyl_Jones hasn't actually found the ark...soooo...something needs to be fixed somewhere :).

Moveable sanctuary

When did this article decide to describe the ark as a moveable sanctuary? The tabernacle was the moveable sanctuary, and the ark was located within it. Or is there some Jewish perspective I am missing? Jdavidb 20:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody ever responded, and since the ark was not a sanctuary I've taken this wording out. Jdavidb 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Revealing of the Ark

The revealig date was yesterday, and I've heard nothing on the news about it. 65.188.159.140

(There might have been some misconceptions arising from the New International Version's interpretation of Exodus 34:28, due to ambiguity in that verse).

Can someone explain this? Trollderella 16:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it didn't make any sense to me. I don't know why the writer singled out the NIV; it reads basically exactly the same as the KJV and the NASB. Sounds like there's some minority opinion that that verse ambiguously means that God wrote the second tablets as well as the first, but I was taught in Sunday School (and verse 27 agrees with) the idea that Moses wrote the second tablets, rather than God. Perhaps the common Jewish understanding is that God wrote the second tablets as well and its a difference of differing Christian and Jewish interpretations of verse 28, but that has nothing to do with the NIV. (It amazes me how people commonly want to say that the idea they disagree with, like leaving out the Apocrypha, or Isaiah 7:14 meaning a virgin birth, or whatever, originated with some particular English translation like the KJV or the NIV, when usually the idea, though possibly wrong, predated the English translation by centuries and the complainant is really just revealing that they don't know much about the English translation they are speaking of.)

actually, the Hebrew word for virgin is betula, while the sentence says alma. maybe I got the names of the books wrong, because these English names are very confusing, but the other 2 possibilities were either in Aramaic, and for what I could understand irrelevant, or in Hebrew and irrelevant. what is apocrypha? as to who wrote the second tablets, I always learned in my Jewish school that it was Moshe ("moses"). the entries about the bible and new testament should be separated. imagine if I wrote a book and insisted it gets included with the quran, is anybody going to take it seriously? so why can Christians write books and make it the convention that those are part of the bible? it doesn't make sense, and is scientifically wrong. 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the paragraph completely out. If there's an issue of differing Jewish/Christian interpretations, it should go back in, but it probably shouldn't go in the introduction to the article which is just for a broad summary of the subject. Jdavidb 17:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

*two* revert wars!

Is having two independent revert wars on an article a record? If not, what is the record? William M. Connolley 22:15:49, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

WMC, please stop removing verifiable and cited information. The included information is acceptable to wikipedia policies (eg., Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV). You have been editing things out that you simple don't like (ignoring thier citations and verifiability). Sincerely, JDR 21:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Reddi, please stop adding fairy tales and Teslaphile junk to articles where they are quite inappropriate. Also, edits to talk pages shouldn't be marked minor: by definition, you want people to read them. William M. Connolley 08:22:01, 2005-08-31 (UTC).

Mr. Connolley, please stop removing the modern speculation. It's acceptable according to Wikpedia policies. Anon just added the citation of Senior Member of the IEEE, Burger, David, ("Electrical & Electronic & Telecommunications Milestones in Australia"). Please read the Usenet thread "An electrical engineering question". in Soc.history.ancient also. It's not "Teslaphile junk". JDR (PS., the minor edit mark is somthing I forget alot; that isn't that big of deal though ... not everyone hides minor edits; People interested in the topic will read edits to this talk reguardless of the edit type.)

Removal of verifiable and cited sources

Mr. Connolley [its Dr Connolley to you - William M. Connolley 18:48:39, 2005-08-31 (UTC)], the information is not "Teslaphile junk". Louis Ginzberg, author of "The Legends of the Jews", mentions the subject. The Learning Channel had a presentation on "The Lost Ark" which went indepth about the subject. The Jewish Encyclopedia also talks about the Ark being electrical in it's article. This is a theory, concept, and idea that has been published in reputable sources (Ginzberg's book for example). The section states the key concepts and states the known and popular ideas and identify the sources. PLEASE stop removing the information.

Inaddition, your anti-POV (or, in your words, "hacked [the obsession] down") reguarding Nikola Tesla makes your edits reguard his information (eg, individual who is an authority in electrical engineering; this being a EE topic) suspect (the obsession is in your opinion; NT is a reputable source for many EE topics). WMC, please review Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research (inparticular "What is excluded from articles?" and "How to deal with Wikipedia entries about theories"), and (most importantly) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Sincerely, JDR 17:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the same old junk that psuedo-scientists and the Teslaphiles always use to stuff wiki full of junk. Sadly few people think its worth the effort of arguing with you. William M. Connolley 18:48:39, 2005-08-31 (UTC).

Bzzt! -20pts. WMC please stop ignoring wikpedia policies. WMC, please review Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research (inparticular "What is excluded from articles?" and "How to deal with Wikipedia entries about theories"), and (most importantly) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. JDR 18:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Modern Inquiry

The Inquiry of operation is cited and should be included in the article... William M. Connolley seems hell bent on removing referenced material. 16:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Reddi, do stop adding fairy stories to sensible articles. One day you will learn that just because Tesla said something, or was interested in it, doesn't make that notable. William M. Connolley 17:14:04, 2005-09-06 (UTC).

It isn't just Tesla! Read the citations! The Senior Member of the IEEE, David Burger ("Electrical & Electronic & Telecommunications Milestones in Australia") includes it in his timeline. Please read the Usenet thread "An electrical engineering question". in Soc.history.ancient also. This is notable. JDR

BTW, on how notable this topic is ... it is in David Hatcher Childress's "Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients". ISBN 0932813739 JDR 19:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Reddi's 3RR vio

Reddi has reverted this article 4 times today (in reverse order...):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ark_of_the_Covenant&diff=22719015&oldid=22718580
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ark_of_the_Covenant&diff=22715383&oldid=22714188
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ark_of_the_Covenant&diff=22712120&oldid=22711038
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ark_of_the_Covenant&diff=22704951&oldid=22701870

All of these are 6th Sept, since 17:16. Note that the first on that list (last in time) is disguised with a few wiki-links to hide the reversion, and is not marked as the reversion it is.

In what looks to me like a fit of pique, Reddi has added a dispute tag to the page. I've removed it, as (as even Reddi admits) the factual accuracy of the page is *not* in dispute at all. Reddis complaint is about the absence of his pet stuff, not the accuracy of what remains. William M. Connolley 20:58:28, 2005-09-06 (UTC).

It's not a "sudden outburst of anger". If there was a better / more descriptive tag, I'd put it in. But sadly there isn't. The factual accuracy of the page is in dispute ... omission is is one thing that make something inaccurate (this is different than purposeful omission). The artiocle doesn't even state that it is leaving out information . The article is inaccurate because of POVs and ignoring cited references. JDR

Who said anger? This is too feeble and pathetic for anger. Its pique. You are abusing the dispute tag, because you can't get your way with the text you want. This is nothing to do with factual accuracy, and all about you trying to bludgeon your fairy stories into the article. William M. Connolley 22:10:31, 2005-09-06 (UTC).

Your pseudoskeptical ignorance shows WMC. If you want to use words, find out what they mean.

Because the Ark's operations is referenced in several books and writings of people that understand enegry ... noted by engineers and researchers ... the article is inaccurate, because of the lack of information. JDR 12:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED

Modern speculation of operation

Some have inquired on a scientific explianation of the Ark's operation. Electronic textbooks have discussed the concept in discussions of capacitors through time. Some have suggested that it could be a microwave cavity resonator. Historical inquiry concerning the Ark of the Covenant indicates that it operated as an electrical circuit have been held by some, including, in the 1900s, electrician Nikola Tesla. The design of the ark have characteristics to generate an electric charge, and thus could facilitate an electric discharge between the cherubs. Exodus 28 also describe priests garments which seem similar to static control smocks.

The biblical accounts of individuals sudden deaths from touching the Ark could correspond to death by a lethal high voltage charge. In Leviticus 10, Nadab and Abihu perform unprescribed procedures with the Ark which results in a "fire from the Lord," which "devoured" Aaron's sons. Some biblical accounts could correspond with exposure to some extremely high frequency electromagnetic fields (such as ultraviolet light or x-rays). "Fiery jets" occasionally burned and destroyed close objects. Louis Ginzberg’s "Legends of the Jews" has ancient oral traditions referring to "sparks" from the cherubim.

Two sparks issued from the Cherubim that shaded the Ark, and these killed all the serpents and scorpions that crossed the path of the Israelites, and furthermore burned all thorns that threatened to injure the wanderers on their march through the desert.

"In Leviticus 10, Nadab and Abihu perform unprescribed procedures with the Ark which results in a "fire from the Lord," which "devoured" Aaron's sons." - there is actually no mentioning of the arc in that passage (and I know of no connection between the arc and this). this is totally irrelevant and unrelated.

Jewish legend also has occasional records of a "cloud" between the cherubim. The Ark was considered dangerous at these times and Moses would not approach it.

Tesla, in the article "The fairy tale of electricity" (published September 9, 1915), stated in regards to the Ark:

The records, though scanty, are of a nature to fill us with conviction that a few initiated, at least, had a deeper knowledge of amber phenomena. To mention one, Moses was undoubtedly a practical and skillful electrician far in advance of his time. The Bible describes precisely, and minutely, arrangements constituting a machine in which electricity was generated by friction of air against silk curtains, and stored in a box constructed like a condenser. It is very plausible to assume that the sons of Aaron were killed by a high-tension discharge, and that the vestal fires of the Romans were electrical.

Of the archaeological discoveries of the last century (which include the Baghdad Battery among others), there is an indication that a working knowledge of energy devices might have been present in ancient Middle Eastern cultures. Moses' received specialized training in the house of Pharaoh (Exodus 2:10). The more recent theory concerning the Ark's operation, that the Ark of the Covenant was a extraterrestrial communications box, by Author Erich von Däniken is considered considered unlikely by mainstream archaeology. Von Däniken speculation edges toward a particular point of view. In the film "Chariots of the Gods", von Däniken showed an Ark replica made by Minnesota college students which produced a electrical charge, though.

Could it be that this ark contained a very powerful Radioactive source. This would explain the faces of the saints going white and glowy. There could be exposed to a radioactive source. [unsigned: by 81.70.252.138]

Don't you think it is more likely to have been exposure to the Space Aliens kept inside that made the Saints go white? William M. Connolley 08:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC).

No, after study I am now almost sure it was a Radioactive source inside the structure. If one searches Google one will find some interesting articles. And yes, indeed the 'Glowing' faces of the Saints were , imo, caused by the Radioactive isotope within this structure. Of course I can not prove it, just as all the content, speculations, etc. of this whole big article can be not be proven ... . :D Marminnetje {03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}

Modern speculation

• Beaver, Gary, "The Ark of the Covenant of our Lord". ordotempli.org
• Badillo, Tony, "Ark of the Covenant Secrets".

END

This information should be included in the article. JDR 12:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If I can pick apart those sources:

Modern speculation

• Broken, even with Wayback. However, I've seen the show. It did describe the Ark as a capacitor. Speculatively, of course, and mentioning no sources. Tesla may or may not have been mentioned, but I strongly doubt the idea was original. I enjoyed the programme, but that's a long way from wanting to see it recapped in an encyclopedia article.

  Says, and I quote, "1445BC The description of the “Ark of the Covenant” in Exodus 25:10-22, reads like an electrical device, Nikola Tesla mentions this in "A fairy tale of electricity", published September 9, 1915. Other biblical accounts imply effects from the Ark correspond with exposure to high power electromagnetic fields, and the 1981 film ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ popularise this artefact." In short, adds nothing to the Tesla source, and pulls in a rollicking action romp by George Lucas that has nothing to do with it.

  Broken, but Wayback knows it: [1]. Does not make any claims that the Ark is a capacitor, but makes the even more outrageous claim that some machine (which may or may not have been the Ark) produced manna. Armchair speculation by one individual on teh intarweb.

  Usenet post. Not a reputable source itself and references no reputable sources. Mentions a "textbook" that might very well have gotten its inspiration from Tesla, but there's no way to tell.

• Yup, that does talk about sparks killing snakes and scorpions and burning thorns. But it doesn't connect it to electricity, or any other theory on what the Ark supposedly was. Can Wikipedia make the connection? No. If it could, I could just as well follow it up with theories about how an Ark using electrical discharges would have been very impractical for killing vermin or burning wood, compared to, say, a torch, but all that is beside the point. You'd need a source that uses this particular text to claim the Ark was a capacitor, not just quote this sentence suggestively.

  The only reference that is completely relevant, even if it only establishes that Tesla made this speculation.

• Beaver, Gary, "The Ark of the Covenant of our Lord". ordotempli.org
• Badillo, Tony, "Ark of the Covenant Secrets".

  The Ark as a footstool. Or a throne-chair. Nothing at all about capacitors.

These sources are all way overblown, and so is the text. You can confidently say that Tesla made the claim that the Ark was a capacitor, and Däniken had some funky ideas too. But honestly, that's it. All the rest is speculation. In particular, Wikipedia should not engage in Bible interpretation.

Wikipedia cannot gather bits and pieces from various sources to bolster the claim that the Ark was a capacitor. That's original research, even if Tesla or Däniken or whoever else had the idea before, and even if a television show elaborated it some more. There is an important difference between citing sources and using them.

I will grant you that the Tesla idea seems widespread enough (one way or another) to mention in passing. But the information as it "should be included" overdoes it severely, as all the rest is derivative or worse. 83.133.127.89 19:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

---

1st ... this isn't a "teslaian" idea ... it's an objective analysis of various people (historical and contempory) about the "Ark's operation" (be that electrical or non-electrical). There are also sources that are noteworthy (other than Tesla). All the citations rest on analysis of the text and the own individual's knowledge of the subject.

2nd Wikipedia should state the facts (eg. you "bits and pieces") from sources to express the 'known and common claim that Ark _may have_ been electrical.

3rd it's not original research when you state the other researchers (eg., Ginzberg, Tesla, Däniken, etc., ...) had the idea before. In fact, as you state, the television show elaborated it. The difference between citing sources and using them ... is if there 'is "new" idea, and this is not the case'.

4th The "picking apart" seem IMHO to be a poor and biased job ... the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources (which the citations did). Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view.

• THe TLC-Ark link is broken due TLC channel's reformating ... and the presentation was in a shockwave format (that's why the Wayback machine doens't have a copy). It did describe the Ark as a capacitor. Speculatively? It provided a easy graph on the concept ... and though it mentioned no sources itself, it can be a source. Tesla was not mentioned in the show (but an image of Tesla's Colorado Lab could be seen in the shockwave presentation; you'd have had to look closely during the opening @ the background and seen several of the old pictures of Tesla's experiments), and the idea is not "original" though. It is IRRELEVANT, though, if you enjoyed the programme inreguards to the idea being recapped in an encyclopedia article. As the idea should be in an encyclopedia of the Ark ... as it deals directly with the subject!
• Burger citation adds _another_ 'qualified electrical engineer's analysis to that of others.
• Sassoon citation states that it may have a been a machine (which was called "the Ark" in the bible, but may not or may have been the exact one decribed) that produced manna (as in the "magical" sense (note that at the turn of the 19th century electricity was still seen as "magical")). AND ... add another consideration of a subject (... ie., it is _one more analysis as to the operation_, irrespective of that operation ...).
• Usenet post citation .... this states that is a _known subject_ and a "common" question and not "original" research ...
• The Ginzberg citations talks about the ark's construction ... and also "talks about sparks killing snakes and scorpions and burning thorns". What do you mean that it "doesn't connect it to electricity"? What other kind of sparks are there?! "Spark" usually refers to a momentary electrostatic discharge across a spark gap ... can Wikipedia state that there were "sparks"? Yes. As, not only is there alot of other sources that do, the holy scriptures do .... and you could follow it up with other theories (such as the ark was spitting out airborne embers from a normal fire ... BUT _without citations_, that's be original research) .... also that would be besides the point that the holy scriptures stated that was putting out sparks. There are other sources that uses this and other text for claiming the Ark was a electrical device (the whole "capacitor" thing is debateable (a simplistic formulation) ... it may have, more likely, been a cavity resonator (taking in account of the construction of the Ark)).
• The Fairy Tale of Electricity is the a distinctive reference that is relevant and it establishes that Tesla made this analysis.
• The Courson citation (which you conviently ignored) talks about the Ark as a electrical device and that the priests garments resemble anti-electrostatic uniforms.
• Exodus28 Skeptic's Annotated Bible citation gives the text in the holy scripture of the Courson citation.
• The Leviticus 10]:1 citation is that Aaron's sons are killed ... the "fire" went out and devoured them and they died and Aaron held his peace.
• Beaver citation (another site that you "conviently" ignore) is a scholastic researcher of ancient Templarism to enable dicerning the fantasy from fact. He is another that brings up the concept that the Ark was a electrical device.

the correct logical way to go about something is to invent a theory, and then prove it. not to invent a theory, assume its correct and use it as proven scientific fact. when you can't prove a theory to be correct then it is meaningless. it carries no weight. therefore, since the previous facts have not been proven false, the assumption is they are correct, since at the time they were proven as true. if you want to prove them wrong you must disprove the evidence these facts are based on, which is the testimony of an entire nation who saw miracles that could not be natural, not even with todays technology. prove there testimony is false, that all those events that happened over a period of decades had in fact not taken place, and you disprove the bible. any thing less than that cannot change the bibles status as proven fact. these theories about the possibility of the arc being an electric device are based on the assumption the bible is false, therefore do not belong in an encyclopedia which dealse with fact. however, these theories are about electrical features the arc may have had and as such are worthy theories. theories that try to explain how things happened based on the assumption that proven fact is false, don't belong. 20:10, 17 January 2007

• The Badillo citation talks about an analysis of the Ark ... but you misconstrue why it was included ... it was not about the ark being a electrical device .... only that the ark had been investigated (for stated bibilical or other purposes).

Wikipedia should state the facts from various sources to express the known claims that the Ark may have been a electrical device. Doing so is not original research, OTHERS have had the idea before aand investigated the possiblities, and even a television show elaborated on it. This is what is called "source-based research," and is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.. This is not "original Bible interpretation" ... it is a "sourced interpertation". 16:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Domain of legend

--Gerard von Hebel 22:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC) I am not too happy with this sentence "When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and plundered the temple, the Ark entered the domain of legend". Since it can be argued that it has always been there. The Biblical references to the Ark are all made in contexts of which the historicity is doubtfull to say the least.

A critic might say that the refered abilities of the Ark might be exaggerated. However, simply because something might be said to be greater than it really is doesn't mean it didn't exist at all. The exaggeration only grows when the original object is missing. The same is true here. Regardless of whether the Ark posessed said powers or no, there's no reason to doubt it's existance, or the existance of the temple in which it resided, or the people who utilized the previously mentioned objects. SF2K1

and why is it doubtfull? because you assume that the bible is wrong. so the question is if the bible is true. you want it to be false therefore you assume it is false and everything else, including so-called "evidence" againsed it is based on that assumption.

Halo

I've removed this paragraph from the end of the article:

In the video game Halo 2 the "Ark" is a secondary control system for the ringworlds (the "Halos") that are capable of killing all life in the galaxy. The Ark is presumably on Earth, near the city of Mombasa. This Ark could be a reference to Noah's Ark, since activating it would destroy all life much like the Great Flood; interestingly, the purpose of the Halos is to stop the spread of a scourge that turns sentient beings into the "Flood", a horde of ravenous, zombie-like creatures.

As you can see, it's not actually about the Ark of the Covenant. I'm pasting it here in case someone finds it salvagable. Dan 20:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Browne

I tidied her bit up, but is it really relevant that a 'supposed' psychic thinks it underneath the sphinx, with absolutely no evidence what so ever apart from her 'spirit guide'. I'm up for deleting it, as I can't find any other sources, but I didn't look too hard. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Going to delete it then, think it doesn't add anything to the article. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Badger Skins??????

BS"D

Where are we getting that the aron habris was covered in badger skins? I have never heard that before. Shaul avrom 13:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a mistake, but I'm too lazy to look up the correct data. 20:14, 17 January 2007