Re: a minor goof

Posted by Me again.... from ppp-34-pm1-beaverton.spiretech.com on June 19, 1999 at 00:39:30:

In Reply to: Re: Ark Clarification posted by Nick Kismet on June 19, 1999 at 00:25:00:

: : I King 8:6, however, says that the priests brought the ark in and put it "beneath the wings of the cherubim." That suggests that they were separate.

:
: This may be due to the fact that, in addition to the cherubs on the Mercy Seat, there were also large cherub statues in the Temple of Solomon, extending wingtip to wingtip 1 Kings 6:23-28, which did extend their wings above the ark. This is different from the cover described at Exodous 25:17-22.
Ooops...I just read the context of 1 Kings 8:6, and I see that it does not pertain to the temple at all. I do see your point about the reference making it seem as though the covering cherubs were not actually a part of the Ark. However, I think that the prevailing scholarly view of the Ark, as depicted both in the book Indy showed at the beginning (though the Hebrews would never have carried it uncovered) and the artifact used in the film, is more or less accurate. BTW, a nod to you Mikal for correctly pointing out that the Holy Grail is a medieval myth, with no basis in scripture.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : : I King 8:6, however, says that the priests brought the ark in and put it "beneath the wings of the cherubim." That suggests that they were separate.

: : 
: : This may be due to the fact that, in addition to the cherubs on the Mercy Seat, there were also large cherub statues in the Temple of Solomon, extending wingtip to wingtip 1 Kings 6:23-28, which did extend their wings above the ark. This is different from the cover described at Exodous 25:17-22.
: Ooops...I just read the context of 1 Kings 8:6, and I see that it does not pertain to the temple at all.  I do see your point about the reference making it seem as though the covering cherubs were not actually a part of the Ark.  However, I think that the prevailing scholarly view of the Ark, as depicted both in the book Indy showed at the beginning (though the Hebrews would never have carried it uncovered) and the artifact used in the film, is more or less accurate.  BTW, a nod to you Mikal for correctly pointing out that the Holy Grail is a medieval myth, with no basis in scripture.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]