Is there any evidence, other than the Bible, that the Ark of the Covenant actually existed?

There is an Egyptian account of Pharoah Shishak taking it when he sacked Jerusalem.

There are ancient pictures showing the Temple treasures being taken away by the Romans. Look up Titus' Arch.

yes.

In fact there have been several shows on Discovery and The History channel concerning it's history, as well as it's possible fate.

It's part of the history of the Temple in Jerusalem, a place which actually existed, both Jerusalem, and the Temple.

Just because something is mentioned in the Bible doesn't automatically make it an object of myth, and that it doesn't exist. Babylon is mentioned, it existed. Jericho is mentioned, it existed. Sodom and Gomorrah, another story that evidence is showing is at least based on a real place.

----------edit

yeah, things been missing for quite a long time. probably long since destroyed.

Researchers built a replica using the specifications given in the OT for it, and found that the thing can build up a really *big* static electric charge, in a desert climate it could build up a big enough charge to kill. Sounds like the thing was designed by Moses, who was trained by the Egyptian priesthood, in some of the more "carney" methods of religion.

Kinda of a tough call for evidence. On Jewish history, the OT is a valid source, since it is a historical/religious record of the Hebrew people...solid physical evidence? The temple is down to just a wall, most of the cities mentioned are just a few lumps of rock, archeology has less and less to work with for evidence the further back into the past that they go...Records deteriorate, tablets destroyed, paper and skins burn, cities disappear, sometimes only a few fragments of anything are left to tell a story of what was...

I am not aware of any sources other than the Bible for the Arc but there could be. However, I would ask you to consider one thing: not believing in the inspiration of the Bible does not mean that you can't treat the Bible as a reliable source. I think you would agree with me that even if you reject a divine origin for the Bible, it should be considered by any open minded person to be at least as reliable as many of these extra-Biblical sources you refer to in your question. Here are two examples: (1) The New Testament presents Jesus as an historical figure; so does the extra-Biblical historian Josephus. Do you accept Josephus as a more reliable, historical source than the New Testament? If so, why? And (2) the Bible refers in Exodus to the Walls of Jericho. The existence of these walls has been verified by archaeologists. Would you not accept the Biblical text's reference to these walls without archaeological verification? If these are your criteria, then you must reject every historical reference in non-Bibilical sources unless they are confirmed by more than one source or by archaeology. The Bible has proven to be very reliable as an historical document, even if you reject its supernaturalism.

The Ethiopian church claims the ark was given to the Queen of Sheba as a gift from King Solomon. The have an accurate depiction of it in all their churches today.

I found this

the presence of the ark in Ethiopia is well-documented by the local Jewish faithful. “They claim with good reason that, although they lost political power to the Christians, they are the descendants and heirs of those ancient Jews”. The Ethiopian Jews themselves claim the site of the ark to be in the church of Mary Zion in the small town of Axum. This is the source of Hancock's findings. The ark is said to be guarded by a monk “who devotes his life to the task, it is off-limits to all persons, including kings and bishops”. There are replicas of the ark in all Ethiopian monasteries and churches, all of which are off-limits as well. In fact, “no church is fit for worship unless a copy of the Ark is installed in it, and no service is considered sacred without its presence”. The church of Mary Zion in Axum is fortified, on all sides, by armed guards making entry virtually impossible. No one may ever prove the ark actually rests there. This is fine for Hancock, who claims that one does not need to confirm they have a cold virus inside their bodies when the symptoms make it perfectly clear. In addressing the need for more scholarly research, Ephraim Isaac demands that the Ethiopian tradition be respected, yet stating that it would be absurd to “make wild guesses as to the true nature of the artifact now in Axum”.

first of all, the bible is not evidence because the biblical books are not primary source documents, nor any other form of historical resource. Look up "historical research methods". in order to be historical, there has to have been eyewitness accounts, usually in the form of letters, of its existence.

next, the Ark is a legend and there are no historical references to it other than references to the bible and rumors of it being "found", all known examples of which have been forgeries. Legends are, by nature, people, places, and objects that have been written and spoken about, without any primary source accounts of their existence. Even with primary cource accounts, there must be careful analysis just incase the said accounts were hoaxes in their time or modern forgeries.

The Bible isn't evidence of the stories it purports. This is circular logic at it's finest...

If you use the Bible as evidence for the claims it makes, then can I use "The Lord of the Rings" as evidence of hobbits?

Alexkeaton: Kind of convenient, eh?

Hatir Balon: Those Discovery Channel/History Channel programs were talking about Noah's Ark, not the Ark of the Covenant. And they merely said that they had "possibly" found the remains of a wooden ship that "may or may not" have been Noah's Ark.

Well, you have to remember that the Ark of the Covenant was deadly. Anyone who touched it died. The fact that they took the evidence with them is strong evidence in itself.

None I'm aware of. It's in the same realm as the spear of destiny and holy grail... and others...

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays...

If you don't believe in the Bible, then why would you be interested in the Ark of the Covenant. :P