Ark of the covenant/Talk

Hmmm... this entire article bugs me because of its tone. The sentence "When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and plundered the temple, the ark was probably taken away by Nebuchadnezzar and destroyed, as no trace of it is afterwards to be found. The absence of the ark from the second temple was one of the points in which it was inferior to the first temple." seems very biased. Does someone who feels they can tackle this topic clean it up re NPOV? I feel a bit out of my depth here. -- ManningBartlett

---

Yeah, but what do we expect from a 19th-century Bible dictionary? The original article author keyed in tremendous volumes of information from that book, which doesn't seem like an entirely bad thing to have done (I commend him on his labor). Us WikiPedians just need to go over the stuff and reproject it through a lens of (attempted) objectivity. As a lifelong atheist, I personally would find it extremely valuable to have a non-religious resource for many of the names/places/dates and folklore of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. --Branden