Rating: 
Summary: Raiders of the lost Ark?
Review: "Hey, Indy I've found something", Oh, wait, that's a line from the movie 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' isn't it? and 'The Sign & the Seal' is a serious historical, archaelogical account of the search for, and supposed discovery of the biblical Ark of the Covenant. Yes, one is fantasy and the other non-fiction, although after reading some parts of the book, don't be surprised if you find yourself flipping to the backcover to check on the publishing category. For your reference it's 'history/religion/archaeology' That the book reads like a great adventure novel makes it enjoyable. That it purports to have solved the mystery of not only what happened to the Ark, but also that Hancock says that he knows where it is, makes this a book that deserves serious attention. The author spent considerable time researching this subject and his quest took him to Jerusalem, Egypt, the Chartres Cathedral in France and finally Ethiopia. He read widely and interviewed many people and discusses a wide variety of topics. The Kebra Nagast (the ancient Ethiopian history of the Queen of Sheba), the Templars, the Holy Grail, the biblical story of Solomon and the Babylonian Exile of the Jews all have some bearing on the wherabouts of the Ark. Hancock weaves it all together with style. Research, genuine interest, enthusiasm and writing style however are insufficient in overcoming the critical flaw of the book. Unlike a movie which can end however it chooses, an investigative history book must prove it's thesis. Hancock neatly dodges producing proof by telling us that the guardian of the Ark won't let anyone see it. In recalling the conversation Hancock remembers saying 'this is a great disappointment for me', to which the guardian philosophically replied 'there are worse things in life than disappointment', to which I say, there are many movies that could use good endings like this but a history book should not be allowed to get away with it.
Rating: 
Summary: The Part That Kills Me...
Review: ...is when people say it's "unlikely" that the Ark is in Ethiopian or that "it's just not" the same as the Holy Grail simply because they BELIEVE it's not. Hancock went through a lot of trouble to research this thing (whether you find his methods thorough or not) and he has basically "thrown down the gauntlet." If you think he's wrong, take up the challenge and do your own research to SHOW where he's wrong; it makes you look like an idiot when you say he's wrong just based on the power that you BELIEVE it's so. ("Myths aren't based on any kind of reality, not because I've done extensive research to prove that this is ridicuous, but because I BELIEVE it's ridiculous and I said so. That should satisfy anyone that this is an impressive rebuttal to Hancock's thorough research.") Who are YOU?!? No, your mere belief that Hancock is wrong is not enough for me to take your review seriously. Try actually pointing out a fact or two that makes me think, so that I can investigate and SEE that he's wrong. Thanks.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting insight into the history of the Ark
Review: Graham Hancock postulates that the Ark is a divine tool. What kind of tool can cut stone, elevate the stone slabs into a 70 foot monument with a massive weight over 500 tons; collapse of the walls of Jericho; spread cancerous tumors to the Philistines; strike unrighteous men dead (Nadab and Abihu and 256 princes of Israel), and give King Uzziah leprosy? The Ark has intelligence. Cancer can be caused from Gamma radiation. The gamma particles destroy DNA sequence in the chromosomes causing mutation, leading to cancer. Nuclear generators can cause water to boil and turn turbines generating vast amounts of electric current. Man has never created a device that can reduce the effects of gravity. To what purpose would God place such a powerful tool within the hands of man? Could the Ark kill from a great distance? If it could, they didn't know how to make it do that. They always brought the ark to the battlefield within close proximity of the threat. They marched it around Jerico for it to have effect. If the power is due to radioactive materials inside, then lead would stop emminations. If "sparks" got through anyway, it would mean imperfections in the lead box allowed the sparks to come out. However, if God wanted to use the ark to cut the Dome of the Rock mosque off of the temple hill, he probably knows how to make it reach out to that location. Why did Nadab and Abihu die? Nadab and Abihu died for disobedience. God told them not to touch the ark. They touched it. If they couldn't obey that simple commandment, then their lives were forfeit. What was the strange light they offered to the Lord? I didn't read about the strange light, so I'm not familiar with this gift. Could it be refilling the radioactive material inside the ark? We all know that radiation can cause cancerous tumors. Why didn't the Ark always protect the House of Israel from its enemies in battle? Did the Lord direct the commands of war from the Ark? The inconsistency of the Ark to protect the armies of Israel lead Hancock to believe the Ark was a tool not the visage of a divine personage.
Rating:
Summary: Raiders of the lost Ark?
Review: "Hey, Indy I've found something", Oh, wait, that's a line from the movie 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' isn't it? and 'The Sign & the Seal' is a serious historical, archaelogical account of the search for, and supposed discovery of the biblical Ark of the Covenant. Yes, one is fantasy and the other non-fiction, although after reading some parts of the book, don't be surprised if you find yourself flipping to the backcover to check on the publishing category. For your reference it's 'history/religion/archaeology' That the book reads like a great adventure novel makes it enjoyable. That it purports to have solved the mystery of not only what happened to the Ark, but also that Hancock says that he knows where it is, makes this a book that deserves serious attention. The author spent considerable time researching this subject and his quest took him to Jerusalem, Egypt, the Chartres Cathedral in France and finally Ethiopia. He read widely and interviewed many people and discusses a wide variety of topics. The Kebra Nagast (the ancient Ethiopian history of the Queen of Sheba), the Templars, the Holy Grail, the biblical story of Solomon and the Babylonian Exile of the Jews all have some bearing on the wherabouts of the Ark. Hancock weaves it all together with style. Research, genuine interest, enthusiasm and writing style however are insufficient in overcoming the critical flaw of the book. Unlike a movie which can end however it chooses, an investigative history book must prove it's thesis. Hancock neatly dodges producing proof by telling us that the guardian of the Ark won't let anyone see it. In recalling the conversation Hancock remembers saying 'this is a great disappointment for me', to which the guardian philosophically replied 'there are worse things in life than disappointment', to which I say, there are many movies that could use good endings like this but a history book should not be allowed to get away with it.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic Biblical Journey
Review: I have only read half way through this book and I find it very enjoyable. It bit hard to read in the beginning, but it picks up toward the middle and is almost hard to put down. The Book with some of the passages cause you to sit back and think, as well as wonder about the times prior to present day history. Also cause one to reflect on their own relgious beliefs and contemplate it origins. Well documented, excellent research.
Rating:
Summary: The Part That Kills Me...
Review: ...is when people say it's "unlikely" that the Ark is in Ethiopian or that "it's just not" the same as the Holy Grail simply because they BELIEVE it's not. Hancock went through a lot of trouble to research this thing (whether you find his methods thorough or not) and he has basically "thrown down the gauntlet." If you think he's wrong, take up the challenge and do your own research to SHOW where he's wrong; it makes you look like an idiot when you say he's wrong just based on the power that you BELIEVE it's so. ("Myths aren't based on any kind of reality, not because I've done extensive research to prove that this is ridicuous, but because I BELIEVE it's ridiculous and I said so. That should satisfy anyone that this is an impressive rebuttal to Hancock's thorough research.") Who are YOU?!? No, your mere belief that Hancock is wrong is not enough for me to take your review seriously. Try actually pointing out a fact or two that makes me think, so that I can investigate and SEE that he's wrong. Thanks.
Rating: 
Summary: A great ride through time
Review: Hancock takes you on a ride of a lifetime through the history of the grail legend, from Chartes to Scotland to the Holy Land to Ethiopia. This is a fast read for those interested in this subject. I read this book in three weeks. I could not put it down. Hancock connects the dots. If this is true, then a question of the ages may very well have been answered. This book makes sense. It is well researched, and Hancock actually travelled to these many places for research.
Rating:
Summary: Good read, but where's the beef??
Review: I tend to be fairly skeptical but enjoy history, especially when written by someone who knows how to keep the reader's interest. I think Hancock makes a very good case for the Ark being in Ethiopia...in fact, just to be sure he wasn't 'sandbaggin' me, I even bothered to check some of the authorities he quotes as "scholars" and indeed he was scrupitiously honest.
I agree with another reviewer here that the ending was more than a small disappointment but the trip was overall worth it. Well-written, and recommended.
Rating:
Summary: 10 Years in the reading
Review: I started reading this book just after it was first published, in 1992 I trudged on for a hundred or so pages, and then put it down. For 10 years. Heavy reading indeed. Every year or so I would pass by the book on my shelf, and it would glare back at me, calling out "Unbeliever!" "Backslider!" I would respond (silently for the most part) "Oh yeah, if the Ark of the Covenant really is in a Church in Axum, then I think, given the importance and power of the Ark, that it might have been subjected to well publicized, widespread, and modern analysis and study by not only religious scholars, but historical scholars as well. Well, at least an article in Time or Newsweek. But I digress. Most useful part of book: Hancock's historical research is very interesting. He made the Bible become an historical record, as opposed to the Holy Book. I had never really though of the Bible as an attempt to lay out a historical narrative, and this book really made it easy to see the Bible in that light. He did a lot of research in a lot of areas for this book. But, I would be really interested in seeing what true scholars make of his sources and conclusions. I don't think many people have the depth of knowledge to truly assess the credibility of those sources and his conclusions. For all we know, the people and sources in his footnotes might be considered a little "wacky" by scholars. I picked the book up again a few months ago, determined to finish what I started, and finally solve the great Mystery of the Ages (and I don't mean the location of Atlantis, or that Isis and Thoth and Moses were Masons). I got very close to putting it down for another 10 years during Part IV. But I am determined to finish it yet. I feel that I might get in trouble, in a religious sense, if I don't.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent book!
Review: The Sign and the Seal is a very admirable attempt to track down the lost Ark of the Covenant. Hancock's research is excellent and he believes in his quest so much that he puts his life in danger at times. After reading this book I can safely say that if the Ark of the Covenant still exists then it is most likely in Axum, Ethiopia, as Hancock claims. There is a steady and persuasive line of evidence pointing directly to Ethiopia that only a true cynic would not take seriously. Prior to reading this book I doubted whether biblical characters like Moses, David and Solomon even existed, but I doubt that no longer. This is no fairy tale; there was an Ark, there was a Temple, and the Ark mysteriously disappeared from that Temple. For those interested in the Knights Templar, the militant monks of the Crusades, Hancock provides some interesting speculation regarding their involvement in seeking the Ark (most likely going all the way to Ethiopia to look for it). Any fan of history and archeology will love this book. Hancock is not without a sense of humor, knowing he would be compared to Indiana Jones and joking about it; he even admits that seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark inspired him to begin his own real-life quest. But unlike the Hollywood version, the actual search for the Ark is extremely difficult and leads to a rather ambiguous conclusion, but that does not mean that the journey was not fascinating!
| 
