Explorations of ancient Temple and Ascent traditions from an LDS perspective.
Very nice reconstruction. Thanks!
Thanks for pointing this out. They did a beautiful reconstruction.I just don't know if that's how the Holy of Holies would have looked. What is the point of the ark being a "footstool" if there is no throne upon which the Deity could be sitting? The two larger cherubim seem to serve no purpose--just standing there. As far as I remember, the biblical record says that their wings touched each other in the middle. I like the theory that the two large cherubim actually formed a throne, with the ark literally serving as a footstool. This type of set-up is well attested in ancient Near Eastern imagery. When reconstructions like this are made, why do they always ignore that there was supposed to be an actual throne in there? If the Ark of the Covenant was to be the throne, God would have to be incredibly small to sit on it (nevermind the fact that there would be nowhere to sit!). I would like to see a reconstruction that takes into account descriptions such as Isaiah's and Ezekiel's, that God actually sat on a merkavah throne.
Post a Comment