Mary, The Ark of the Covenant

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Dec 4 2004, 12:36 PM']Stephen Cardinal Langton, put those [chapters and verses] in the Bible in the early 13th century.[/quote]

i've kindof suspected that the chapters and verses were added by Protestants because of what i consider to be a mistake that was made in chapters 11 and 12 of revelation.

if you look at revelation chapter 11, john says that he sees the temple, and inside it he sees the Ark of the Covenant. Then, if we were watching a movie we could say that he inserts special effects to foreshadow something *REALLY* important . . . and if you read by chapter and verse, you think that he ends the story right there.

If you ignore chapter differences, you read that Mary *IS* the new Ark of the Covenant. (It doesn't state this literally, but it's pretty clear from the imagery: "A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.")

I was just curious if anyone had any comments on this.

Oh, and this means we should always carry Mary before us in battle!

Peace,
Joe

[homeschoolmom]

Are you refering to the chapter numbers? Yeah, they're a little weird. I generally try to ignore them when I read.

[Benedict]

They were added with the intention of making reference easier.

I am not sure where the original breaks were placed, as our "standard" chapter and verse today differ at times slightly, at times considerably from the Douay-Rheims and other early translations.

It is possible that the chapters of Cardinal Langton did not split Revelation 11 and 12 as they are today.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Dec 4 2004, 06:53 PM'] It is possible that the chapters of Cardinal Langton did not split Revelation 11 and 12 as they are today. [/quote]
so who determines where they're split? anyone? i don't think The Church officially addresses this one does it?

lol . . . if it does, then Prots would be implicitly accepting Church authority by quoting chapter and verse . . . the very thing that they think distinguishes them from Catholics!

[Benedict]

There is not, to my knowledge, any official Church standard for chapter and verse demarcations. They mostly conform to convention.

[StColette]

In writing a tract on Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant I came across one reference many times which talked about the Chapters 11 and 12 of the Book of Revelation. During the Middle Ages, the Chapters and verses were not divided up as they are today, thus they continuously flowed into one another. Meaning that the break that seperates Rev 11:19 and Rev 12:1 shouldn't really be seen as an ending of the event that is taking place at that moment. The verses should in fact flow into one another and be read as a whole, not seperated into two events as it is done quite often. Anyway these verses aren't the only ones that can prove Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, there are many similarities that the Ark of the Old Covenant and Mary both share, and parallels can be seen between verses.