Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: Wombat <trigby@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:14:55 -0800 (PST)
On 13 Feb, 04:20, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
Incidentally there also is a line that implies the ark would have
been wrecked except for God's special care.
No it does not. There is no mention of a god's care and in fact 8:1
says " And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the
cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass
over the earth, and the waters asswaged;"
Remembering something usually implies forgetting or ignoring.
That is the line that I had in mind, but I don't think it means to
say that God had temporarily forgotten about Noah. That seems
theologically insecure anyway. Instead, I think God is stepping in to
protect Noah's ark, which, you recall, is a big rectangular box,
sails or oars not being specified, nor a keel.
"The idea of a big rectangular box is a rather late addition to the story..
Ships are described in exactly the same way as the Ark was and they are not
rectangular.
All that does is say that the writers did not know enought to distiguish the
way they described *this* boat from the way they would describe any boat.
So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet long,75
wide, and 45 tall, right? I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of
conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right? For ease of
calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic
meters. One cubic meter of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is a
bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke
displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous. (The
reader who knows something about ship-building will also spot a certain
minor problem with the above figures. No creationist has ever seen it... in
part 'cause if it's corrected, things get worse for Ye Arke.)
Problem 1: The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at Portsmouth,
was 186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged
1strate ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in
1859, was 250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame because
the RN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet long
was not a good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being
launched; that is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick up
out of the water at an angle, (that's straddling) or to bend the other way,
the bows and sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the
water (or at least not as well supported) (that's hogging) and either way
their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames, wooden
ships bigger than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle. Don't take my
word for it, look it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden
Fighting Ship In the Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford Press,
London. Sorry, my copy was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald was
at the time of writing the curator of the National Maritime Museum,
Portsmouth, England. Or build a wooden boat 250 feet long and see what
happens. Ye Arke was the size of_two_ 1st rate line of battleships, laid
end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew better than the shipwrights at
Chatham who built the ships with which the RN dominated the world for 150
years? If I'm wrong, and it is possible to build a 450 foot wooden vessel,
by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some of the money... so long
as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so long as those who say
that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on it while it's being
launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix."
Here we go again! HMS Victoria had wrought iron strapping in the area
of the stern to stop the early steam engine fitted from shaking the
stern off. This information was supplied by the Naval Historical
Branch, the UK government branch who has documents of the Royal Navy
dating back centuries.
BTW, wasn't much of the above first posted by Pat James over 10 years
ago?
Wombat
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: J. J. Lodder
- Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: Mike Painter
- Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- References:
- Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: Mike Painter
- Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: [M]adman
- Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: Bob Casanova
- Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: Robert Carnegie
- Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: Mike Painter
- Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: Robert Carnegie
- Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: Mike L
- Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- From: Mike Painter
- Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- Prev by Date: Re: A new Note to T.O. (and to Ray M.)
- Next by Date: Re: Vatican Declares ToE Compatible With Christianity
- Previous by thread: Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- Next by thread: Re: Noah's Ark just got a lot bigger.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading