(please forgive how my viewpoint changes in this post as I was
researching it on the fly..<g>...)
This post deals with possible use of one or more Arks to allow for
controlled weight reduction in mass.
If you haven't checked out the PBS documentary called 'Wonders of the
African World', please spend a bit'o'time and watch it. There are
several one hour episodes which provide a quite fascinating look into
Africa. The best one I've yet was the segment called 'the Holy Land'
and came on tonight. It dealt with the Ark of the Covenant being in
Axum, Ethiopia at St. Mary's Cathedral.
Of course, there is a lot of hemming and hawing when the locals and the
priests are asked for proof of the Ark being there...but they show some
of the stellae, with one superb stone monolith that consisted of one
single stone. It must have been 300-500 feet tall and looked to be
about 12-15 feet long by about 6 feet wide. No one knows how they were
lifted or set in place.
While the narrator was at one ancient church, he met with an English
author name Roger Grierson who had done much research on the ark and
written a book about it. He says there were MULTIPLE ARKS which were
relatively common in the middle east.
That is news to me and I definitely want to know more if anyone out
there has information on it. David Fasold says there were multiple Arks
from the Flood since so many cultures have similar legends.
I've always found it very difficult to believe that only one Ark of the
Covenant OR Ark of the flood was ever built, so this gives me great
pleasure and a lot more confidence in our forebears.
To my view, without doubt the Jews lifted and probably improved on some
aspects of Egyptian technology (referred to as magic and God) (which of
course they gleaned or inherited from earlier cultures such as the
Sumerians) since they did live with them as slaves for so many
centuries. Sorry, I'm an agnostic and not trying to offend anyone but
to me, it is hardware and advanced science being used to sway and
influence.
I consider phenomena such as the burning bush to have been an
electrostatic flame speaker, angels as men with reduced weight using
wings to swim through the air, advanced chemistry to turn water into
blood, release or even CALL plagues of locusts or frogs, pillars of fire
as plasma vortices surrounded flying devices, ark as a giant Leyden jar
with the 'mercy seat' from which the voice spoke being another
electrostatic speaker, etc, etc...
My point with the post is fourfold;
1) to bring up the documentary which I'm sure many on the list have
watched
2) to mention the huge obelisk/monolith and the ark in one segment
3) to bring up the probablity that there were MORE ARKS in 'common
use'
4) to question what were those arks USED FOR?
In the segment, neither the narrator or the British journalist were
allowed an opportunity to speak with the one priest who guards the Ark.
However, Graham Hancock had tracked all this down years before as so
well documented in 'The Sign and the Seal' where he recounts his
dialogue with the priest who said the 'stellae' (obelisk/monoliths) were
raised by the 'celestial fire' that came from the Ark.
That just gives me shivers....high voltage....DENDERA......
------------------
In the segment on the Holy Land, when viewing the obelisks, the narrator
comments that the builders STOPPED building such structures with the
advent of Christianity in the 4th century AD...here is a quote from the
URL below that backs that up;
'We know from the evidence of coins and inscriptions that the ancient
kings of Aksum WERE PAGAN until the 4th century A.D., when they
converted to Christianity.'
It appears it must have been PAGAN technology that allowed them to lift
the standing stones because they were all built centuries before the Ark
ever came to that portion of Ethiopia. A further quote of interest;
'Solomon anointed him as king of Ethiopia, and then instructed the
elders of Israel to send their own sons to Africa to serve him as
counselors. Because the young Israelites were desperately unhappy that
they would never see Jerusalem and its Temple again, they decided to
carry the Ark with them. In fact, The Glory of Kings tells us that the
Ark itself had decided to leave Jerusalem because the Jews had abandoned
the faith that God had revealed to them.'
'There is no evidence that they (the Ethiopians) claimed descent from
King Solomon or that they were especially interested in the Ark of the
Covenant. The earliest report that the Ark had been brought to Ethiopia
appears at the end of the 12th century, when an Armenian named Abu Salih
wrote in Arabic at Cairo that the Ethiopians possessed the Ark of the
Covenant...'
---------------------
The segment also mentions during WWII when the Italians tried to invade
Axum, they were repelled, partly according to local legend with the help
of the Ark. That's what the narrator was told and which he dutifully
recounted though with some skepticism since it was fairly recent history
and there were no specific details about HOW the Ark helped out. It is
interesting that ONLY Ethiopia, among the countries attacked, was able
to repel the enemy so that Ethiopia was NOT OCCUPIED.
This is the Holy Land Segment and includes the comments by the British
researcher, Roger Grierson;
http://www.pbs.org/wonders/fr_e4.htm
GRIERSON: One of the problems that we have with this is that we tend to
be saying that there's only one Ark. And we look at the Bible and we
think there's one Ark, it couldn't possibly have survived, it couldn't
possibly have been here. But in fact, there's a history of Arks being
used in the ancient near East, so if one imagines Arks not as a single
object but as a kind of religious instrument which existed throughout
the ancient near East I don't see any reason why there couldn't be an
object of immense antiquity and immense importance here.
------------------
In this particular segment, while attending a major festival in Addis
Ababa, many churches were represented and each priest carried a flat
object which was supposed to represent the ark but was wrapped in heavy
fabric. Check out this comment regarind the probable decay of a wooden
ark over the centuries which would leave only one thing, the tablets of
Moses;
'The question therefore arises of whether an Ark might have decayed in
Ethiopia, but the stone Tablets of Moses for which the Ark of the
Covenant had been made would survive unharmed. In fact, the earliest
accounts by foreign travelers in Ethiopia refer to a Tablet rather than
an Ark, and the research undertaken for the recent book published by
Roderick Grierson and Stuart Monro-Hay has revealed that the clergy at
Aksum also describe the great relic as a Tablet rather than an Ark. They
use the word sellat, which means 'tablet', rather than tabot, which
could mean either 'ark' or 'tablet'.'
I am bringing this up because of the frustration of the many ark seekers
who never get a straight answer from any of the Ethiopian priests. If
the ark has truly decayed because of it being wood, then only a shell
would be left (unless it had been repaired) but the stone tablets would
be unaffected.
So, based on this, I am very perturbed by what the priest told Hancock
about the stellae (obelisks/monoliths) having been LIFTED BY THE
CELESTIAL FIRE FROM AN ARK which probably was never even there prior the
the 4th century as Christianity certainly wasn't.
As much as I want to think high voltage, massive discharges at some key
frequency, into heavy stones might somehow lose weight, this Ark
business has now become highly suspect to my view.
HOWEVER, granted that Menelek, the son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
lived long before the 4th century and the claimed life period of Jesus.
Since it was he who is claimed to have taken the Ark to Ethiopia in the
first place, it MUST HAVE BEEN BEFORE the 4th century AD.
I looked up when Solomon existed and this was the first hit which
provided the information;
http://jeru.huji.ac.il/eb32s.htm
King Solomon (970-928 BCE)
which shows as 1000 years before christ...interesting as the Temple of
Hathor at Dendera was built about 1,000 BCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And thats
where the high voltage tube pictures are.
-----------------
This site says the Temple of Hathor at Dendera is dated 2600 BCE;
http://osiris.iemar.tuwien.ac.at/~webspace/ss98/gruppe4/temple/dendera/dendera.htm
'The temple of Dendera, which was consecrated to Hathor, dates back as
far as the time of Cheops (about 2600 B.C.). It was finished during the
ruling of the Ptolemais and some elements were added by the Romans.'
-----------------
http://www.rdatasys.com/~ggonzale/dendera.htm
'This Graeco-Roman temple was first initiated by Ptolemy III with
numerous
additions by subsequent Roman Ptolemic rulers. The Ptolemaic period
refers
to the period of time (305 - 30 BC) in which Egypt was ruled by a
succession
of fifteen Hellenistic rulers all sharing the name of Ptolemy.'
------------------
300 to 2600 years is quite a period, but still old enough to fit within
the time of Solomon and his son (950 BCE), with the Ark being moved. So
the stellae could well have been lifted using an ARK or similar
technology.
EXCELLENT! I can sleep tonight.
-- Jerry Wayne Decker - jdecker@keelynet.com http://www.keelynet.com from an Art to a Science Voice : (214)324-8741 - FAX : (214)324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187------------------------------------------------------------- To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com> with the body text: leave Interact list archives and on line subscription forms are at http://keelynet.com/interact/ -------------------------------------------------------------