Noah's Ark
Gladys Swager
to enter as these postings continue.
I am aware of how accreditation has to be given in High School and
Tertiary level assignments as I have done a four-years, part-time
course to gain my Diploma in Teaching (Special Education).
It may interest you, although a digression from the topic, that I did
a study as part of that course with a speech impaired child in which I
was the first person to encourage her to speak one word on cue. When
my assignment was marked I was criticised for using a text that had
been published twenty years previously. I justified my selection
because it was that text that gave me the inspiration to work the way
I did. I mention it because sometimes knowledge from past times can be
discredited when further investigation is needed. Subsequently, I was
told that therapists had begun to intervene at an earlier age with
such children.
I have spent some time investigating this topic further. I realise
that your attitude most likely will be that Noah's Ark is a myth and
that a world-wide flood DID NOT OCCUR as recorded in the Bible.
The Bib;ical account gives the following dimensions for the Ark:-
length about 140 metres, Width about 23 metres, Height about 13.5
metres, with three decks.
It has been calculated that there would have been room for 432
double-decker buses.
Naval experts have shown that the ratio of the Ark's dimensions was in
fact ideal for its purposes. It would have been an enormously stable
vessel, able to resist being overturned even in the most massive seas.
(Hong, S.W> et al, Safety Investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway, CEN
Tecnical Journal 8(1): 26-36, 1994.
According to the Bible, God Himself gave the overall dimensions for
building the Ark. Whilst the scale of this massive vessel has of
course been exceeded in modern times, it was, up to the 1858 launch of
the Great Eastern, the largest floating vessel known to have been
built. (from article in Creation, Dec. 1999 to Feb. 2000.
Most of the world's cultures have legends of events which are ...
similar to the Flood account recorded in Genesis.
There is a table giving comparisons between the Genesis account and
the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh account at
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-285.htm.
Archaeologically, the stone tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh pre-date
the written record of the Genesis account. Without any authorative
information on that I reasoned that the pre-Hebrew peoples had an oral
tradition which had the imprint of authority because of the datings of
the overlapping ages of the patriarchs before Noah (Noah's father most
likely knew Adam's son, Seth, but I will check that as I do not have
that reference with me now).
As I have had contact with Christian work among Aborigines I find it
of interest that in the dreamtime stories there is a story about a
great flood. The rainbow serpent features in Aboriginal life. The
rainbow and the serpent are within the Genesis account; the serpent
tempted Eve to disobey God and the rainbow was God's promise that the
world would never again be flooded.
I leave that introduction at that at present.
Gladys
Sean McHugh
Hi Gladys,
<snip>
> I have spent some time investigating this topic further. I realise
> that your attitude most likely will be that Noah's Ark is a myth and
> that a world-wide flood DID NOT OCCUR as recorded in the Bible.
I most definitely consider biblical account of the Ark to be
mythology. Please therefore note that none of my references to the Ark
are intended to impart any notion of it or its voyage being
historical.
> The Bib;ical account gives the following dimensions for the Ark:-
> length about 140 metres, Width about 23 metres, Height about 13.5
> metres, with three decks. It has been calculated that there would
> have been room for 432 double-decker buses.
> Naval experts have shown that the ratio of the Ark's dimensions was
> in fact ideal for its purposes. It would have been an enormously
> stable vessel, able to resist being overturned even in the most
> massive seas. (Hong, S.W> et al, Safety Investigation of Noah's Ark
> in a seaway, CEN Tecnical Journal 8(1): 26-36, 1994.
Here is the URL for that 'paper':
URL(1):
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_ArkSafety.asp>
This was not an independent study by "Naval Experts". It was done with
the support of Creation Research - as testified in the acknowledgments
- and was first published in a Creationist book. I had already been
studying that 'paper' before I saw this post to Chris, where you ask
him to look at it.
The fact that the dimensions describe a vessel with a 6:1
length/breadth ratio and the claim that this would have made the Ark
"enormously" stable is what is commonly heralded as indicting divine
design for the Ark. Here are some other examples of that claim:
URL(2):
http://www.ihcc.org/Booklets/noah.pdf
~ Isn't it amazing that thousands of years before man figured it out,
~ Noah had been given instructions by God on how to build an ark that
~ would have the right dimensions for making the most stable vessel
~ possible? The ratio of the ark's length, width and height was
~ perfect.
And another:
URL(3):
<http://www.amendez.com/Noah's%20Ark%20Articles/NAS%20Size%20of%20the%20Ark-Handout.pdf>
~ The ark was built on a 1:6 ratio (50 cubits:300 cubits). The science
~ of naval architecture reveals that the most stable ratio for an
~ ocean going vessel is 1:6. All modern day ocean going vessels use
~ this same length to width ratio. It is estimated that the ark could
~ easily have survived even the largest of ocean waves.
And I'll give one more:
URL(4):
<http://www.biblicalcreation.co.uk/biblical_studies/bcs043.html>
~ In striking contrast to the cubic ark of the Babylonian Flood
~ legend, the Biblical dimensions describe a structure of exceptional
~ stability in water.
Note that (4) juxtaposes the biblical Ark against one of the
Babylonian Flood legend, with implied disadvantage for the latter.
Well I'm going to propose that a cubic (or actually, square) boat of
the same depth and displacement would have been more stable and
stronger. It wouldn't be fast, but it wasn't meant to be.
In the Ark, the greatest instability would be in the direction of the
lesser dimension, that being the breadth. This instability would
constitute roll. Therefore increasing the smaller dimension - the weak
link - while reducing the greater dimension - with its somewhat
redundant longitudinal stability - would more evenly share out the
stability and thus would increase it overall. This can actually be
confirmed in the paper to which Gladys refers (URL(1)).
If one goes to URL(1), Table 1, there are 13 test models. The first,
(#0) is the Ark. Model #12 has the Ark length multiplied by 1.5 and
the breadth divided by the same. This one is the narrowest and the
longest. Model #9 has the Ark length divided by 1.5 and the breadth
multiplied by the same. It is the shortest and widest. Note that with
models 9, 10, 11 and 12, there is no change from the Ark depth, so
this allows us to examine only changes to the supposedly magic
length/breadth ratio of the Ark.
Now if one goes to Table 3 "safety index" column, one can see the roll
stability numbers, where the lower the number is the more stable the
boat is (safest = 0, least safe = 1). One will see that model #12 is
much more unstable (0.649) than the Ark (0.247) while model #9 one is
much more stable (at 0.000) and is the best in fact. This is the one
that is closest to the square. shape and it is the benchmark to which
the others in this column are normalized. That is why it is allocated
"0.000" (or "best").
Anyway, the writers of the paper realized that things weren't looking
too glorious for the Ark, so they tried to dismiss the aspect of roll.
They effectively say, that because all the models, except one, pass
the ABS criteria for stability, let's forget about the roll - the
greatest instability - in evaluating the others against the Ark. From
"Discussion and Conclusion" URL(1):
~ Since all the hull forms except hull #1 had sufficient overturning
~ stability compared to ABS's criteria, we derived the first total
~ safety index as the average of the indices of seakeeping safety and
~ structure safety (see Figure 8). This revealed that the Ark had the
~ second best hull design, with the best hull design in this case
~ being hull #1, which had the worst overturning stability.
They use this idea to produce the graph in figure 8. This should start
the alarm bells ringing. By their own words, the
forget-about-the-roll-to-determine-safety test submits the most
unstable model (#1) as being the "best design"!
Then to get rid of #1, the writers reinsert roll back into the
equation, apparently only to be applied to #1 to facilitate its
removal from contention, while leaving the others untouched. This
selective logic would leave the Ark (#0) as the curious 'best'.
~ When we took the weighted average including overturning stability,
~ such as seakeeping safety 4, structural safety 4 and overturning
~ safety 2, we derived the total safety index as shown in Figure 9.
~ These results also showed that the Ark had superior safety compared
~ to the other hull forms.
Note that "seakeeping safety" should be numbered as 2, not 4 and
"overturning safety" should be numbered as 3, not 2 . . . . . this is
supposed to be a paper! Apart from the dreadful logic they are relying
upon, they blow it anyway. They present a graph (figure 9) that
supposedly removes #1 from contention, and leaves the others
unaffected. In fact, the graph shoots them in the foot. The curve with
the "+" symbols represents the models where the depth is fixed and the
length (and breadth) is altered, as in #9, #10, #11, #12 and #0
(reference/Ark). It goes from the length being divided by 1.5 (or
0.667 along the bottom axis) to the length being multiplied by 1.5
(1.5 on the bottom axis). This corresponds to the breadth being
multiplied by 1.5 and divided by 1.5 respectively. The curve has its
lowest (= best) "safety index" on its left hand side and it is clearly
lower (better) than for the Ark, which appears at 1.0 on the "L/Lo,
B/Bo axis". So once again, it is showing that the shape that is
closest to a square shape is the best.
URL(2) tells us that that the primary capsizing force would have been
the wind. Well this would definitely be improved with a square shape.
It would have lessened the a amount of side exposed to the wind and
would have, with the extra width, made the it much harder to roll away
from any sideways force.
Next we will examine structural strength:
One of the biggest criticisms of the Ark is that a wooden vessel of
that length would be structurally unsound. The biggest modern wooden
ships that were built were about 300ft. The Ark was 450ft long! The
modern ships required steel strapping for reinforcement and needed to
be constantly pumped. It seems fairly obvious that the flexure (and
twisting) would increase as the length was increased. It also seems
reasonable that making the ship shorter and wider would make it
stronger. A good illustration would be to imagine 20mm x 20 mm section
of wood that is 1 metre long. Grabbing it at the ends, it should bend
fairly easily, don't you think? Imagine then chopping it into three
equal lengths and gluing those lengths together to form a single 1/3
metre long member that is 3 times as wide as original. It would then
be much harder to bend, would it not? In fact, it would not bend
nearly as much even with three times the force applied. The same would
apply to the Ark and once again the Creationist site URL(1)
demonstrates this when one looks at it closely.
In Figure 4, the change to the ratio of length and breadth (depth
fixed) is the middle curve and it is marked with the small squares.
Though it is presented somewhat ambiguously, the left-hand side again
represents where the length is reduced and the breadth increased.
Straight away it can be seen that the "Structural Safety Index" is
lower for the wider and shorter shape and consequently is better than
for "0R", representing the Ark.
The writers just gloss over this (URL(1)):
~ The structural indices for the severe condition (11 metre wave
~ height and 180 entrance angle) are shown in Figure 4, which
~ indicates that the structural safety indices were most sensitive to
~ the variation of ship length and ship depth. The Ark's index (OR)
~ was small, so that it had high structural safety.
This is, of course very dishonest, for we know that structural
strength would have been a very serious issue for the Ark, so any
improvement would be extremely worthwhile - and there was plenty to be
had.
By the way, I looked up "seakeeping safety indices" and "structural
safety indices", along with "index" for both and the only relevant
hits I got were from the AiG site.
At this point I will briefly mention Table 2. If one looks at the roll
column it is actually bad for #9. This would at first seem to be in
conflict with what we have seen above, but this is actually talking
about something quite different. It is referring to the ships
compliance with a wave hitting it from the side. In other words, if
the ship can roll easily (IOW, poor stability) the wave strikes will
apply less damaging force. That is why the model that the site has
determined to have the worst stability, has the best figure in this
column. The total Si(wave) column is the weighted average of all the
other columns, like "Roll", "Pitch", "Heave" etc. The important thing
to note is that the best figures here do not represent stability -
more like the opposite.
> According to the Bible, God Himself gave the overall dimensions for
> building the Ark. Whilst the scale of this massive vessel has of
> course been exceeded in modern times, it was, up to the 1858 launch
> of the Great Eastern, the largest floating vessel known to have been
> built. (from article in Creation, Dec. 1999 to Feb. 2000.
That does not help the Ark's plausibility. Also keep in mind that you
are there talking about a steel ship, not a wooden one. Another thing
to note, is that there is nothing particularly modern about the 6:1
ratio. Here is a Viking vessel with that ratio. It's from about 625
AD:
<http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/ships.html>
This one contains a description of ancient Greek triremes from about
480 BC:
<http://www.historyforkids.org/greekciv/science/ships/kenny.htm>
~ Triremes were approximately 118 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 8.5
~ feet tall.
That's a length/breadth ratio of about 6.5 to 1. Both of these ships
would have had designs that tried to lower resistance, to gain extra
speed and manoeuvrability. Speed would not have been a consideration
with a vessel like that Ark. It wasn't going anywhere particular. In
the trireme, a bit more stability has been sacrificed for speed and
manoeuvrability. Modern ships have a higher ratio for this same reason
(See URL(4)).
All up, I can see nothing great about the Ark's stability. In fact,
its design seems to be poor considering its purpose and size/material.
In any case, there is no such thing as ideal or "perfect" in such
designing, especially when the exact conditions aren't known, but even
if there were, compliance wouldn't show anything divine. It would
merely show that the ancient Yahvists weren't quite as backward as we
thought, as compared to other ancient cultures who have left us so
much more to be amazed at.
Though it doesn't deal with Ark stability, here is a good site for
showing the implausibility of the whole Flood story:
<http://www.the-archon.com/guide/second.htm>
<snip>
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh wrote:
<snip>
> URL(2) tells us that that the primary capsizing force would have been
> the wind. Well this would definitely be improved with a square shape.
> It would have lessened the a amount of side exposed to the wind and
> would have, with the extra width, made the it much harder to roll away
> from any sideways force.
Apologies. That should be URL(4):
<http://www.biblicalcreation.co.uk/biblical_studies/bcs043.html>
Gladys Swager
You posted, "The Ark's design .... would merely show that the ancient
Yahvists weren't quite as backward as we thought, as compared to other
ancient cultures who have left us so much more to be amazed at."
I have not seen 'yahvists' written anywhere before. "YHWH is not
really a word, but is known as a tetragrammation', the four consonants
standing for the ancient Hebrew name for God - commonly referred to as
'Jehovah' or Yahweh'. The original Hebrew text was not vocalised as
YHWH was considered too sacred to be
pronounce. When eventually a vowel system was invented, since the
Hebrews had forgotten how to pronounce YHWH, they substituted the
vowels for (their) word for 'my Lord' into YHWH." Zondervan Pictorial
Bible Dictionary. Dr Merrill. C.
Tenney.
The first two commandments given to Moses by God were that they were
not to have any other gods and that no image of God was to be made.
The Hebrews - Israelites - Jews, following the Mosaic law, did not
have the artistic tradition of others who made structures or painted
pictures of their gods, although in times of apostasy (departure from
one's beliefs) idolatry "was often combined with the outward worship
of Jehovah." (Bible Dictionary as above.
The fact is that God gave the directions for the building of the Ark.
How? Whether it was by an audible voice from the skies or by an
insistent idea put into Noah's brain that he knew he had to obey, I
don't know as the Biblical record does not indicate.
If those directions did not meet modern criticisms they were suitable
for the future task and within the capabilities of Noah and his three
sons. Some have speculated that Noah hired labour, but whether that
was so it is not written in the record. I would be doubtful that did
happen as thosse living at that time ridiculed Noah as he built the
ark.
The Ark was meant to float - not to travel to another place. It was
most likely built in the land area around Mt Ararat in present-day
Turkey where it finally came to rest. Noah and his family settled in
the area near present-day Baghad between the Tigris and the Euphrates
Rivers, although the position of those rivers, most likely, were not
in the same position as mentioned in Genesis 2 : 14 as their position
could have changed as a result of the Flood.
The Ark was made of gopher wood - not known elsewhere in Hebreww or
other similar languages. Some think the wood used was treated in a way
to increase its buoyancy and durability. That might be speculataion.
I have read that the trees in Tasmania were found to provide the best
building wood for ships in the 18th Century and that brought about
Tasmania as a ship building centre with exports throughout the world.
The timber was resistant to soaking by sea-water. Therefore, it could
have been a that similar type of tree existed in what is now known as
the Middle East about 4 500 years ago.
Jesus Christ had something very pertinent to say about Noah and the
day of His second coming to this world in Matthew 24 : 36 - 38. "No
one knows about that day....only the Father. As it was in the days of
Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days
before the flood, people were eating and drinking.... up to the day
Noah entered the ark."
The Biblical-Christian teaching that comes from the Flood is that,
instead of continuing in wrong doing, as the locals in Noah's time
did, we should repent of any wrong, change behaviours with the help of
Jesus Christ in the knowledge that he forgives the past to the extent
that the east is from the west. Going out into the universe that is a
very long distance - never meeting as the east and west do when we go
round this world.
Gladys
Gladys
My readings so far through the Internet of other Flood stories - and
there are many throughout the world's various ethnic groups -
indicated to me a greater accuracy in the Biblical account.
Sean McHugh
Gladys Swager wrote:
> Sean, with apologies. I still can't work directly from your posting.
As I have already explained, I don't believe that you _can't_
answer points. In fact, I see much evidence of you deliberately
avoiding them. You asked for comment on the stability of the
Ark. I provided a long and detailed one, yet in your reply, there
is nothing about it except a 'quote' from my conclusion which you
significantly edit.
Your rendering makes my findings appear to be the opposite
to what they were. You make it look (in what follows) as though
what I found was favourable to the Ark.
> You posted, "The Ark's design .... would merely show that the ancient
> Yahvists weren't quite as backward as we thought, as compared to other
> ancient cultures who have left us so much more to be amazed at."
I said nothing of the sort. You can't go using quotation mark and
inside them alter what the person had said. You as a former school
teacher should know that. Nowhere, in my conclusion, does the
phrase, "The Ark's design" even appear. As for the ellipses ("....")
replacing words, that is acceptable as long as it doesn't alter
the context/meaning. With your application, the ellipses, along with
the interpolation, alter both.
Here is my actual conclusion:
~ All up, I can see nothing great about the Ark's stability. In
~ fact, its design seems to be poor considering its purpose and
~ size/material. In any case, there is no such thing as ideal or
~ "perfect" in such designing, especially when the exact conditions
~ aren't known, but even if there were, compliance wouldn't show
~ anything divine. It would merely show that the ancient Yahvists
~ weren't quite as backward as we thought, as compared to
~ other ancient cultures who have left us so much more to be
~ amazed at.
Your addition of words and chopping out others alters the whole
meaning of what I said there. It looks as if I am admitting that the
design was quite advanced. In fact I provided plenty to show that
the Ark's design would not have provided anything like optimum
stability and would not have provided optimum strength. I also
showed that far from the 6:1 ratio being ideal, a 1:1
length/breadth ratio would have been ideal for stability (and
strength) and thus would have been the most suitable for a
craft that was unpowered, as the Ark is supposed to have
been - had there been such as vessel.
Interestingly, Gladys, what you have done is exactly the sort of
thing that one obtains from the Creation 'scientists'. Misquoting
'evolutionists' or quoting them out of context is one of their main
devices.
> I have not seen 'yahvists' written anywhere before.
Who cares? That's not important. It's not about the matter you
presented for discussion. Here are 157 search hits for you to look at:
> "YHWH is not
> really a word, but is known as a tetragrammation', the four consonants
> standing for the ancient Hebrew name for God - commonly referred to as
> 'Jehovah' or Yahweh'. The original Hebrew text was not vocalised as
> YHWH was considered too sacred to be
> pronounce.
Yes Glady's, I am aware of all of that. Look about half way down this
linked post:
> When eventually a vowel system was invented, since the
> Hebrews had forgotten how to pronounce YHWH, they substituted the
> vowels for (their) word for 'my Lord' into YHWH." Zondervan Pictorial
> Bible Dictionary. Dr Merrill. C.
> Tenney.
Look, tell it to a Jehova's Witness. I'm not interested.
The tetragammon is not what my post was about. You wanted a reply
about the Ark's stability. Now that you have received one, it's the
last thing you want to talk about.
<remaining non-reply ramblings skimmed and snipped>
Sean McHugh
Gladys Swager
My further comments were to explain why the peoples of the Bible -
Hebrews, Israelites and Jews - did not have the large number of
artifacts that other nations in the area had. That was in answer to
your comments.
I have not followed all the websites given to me by you in your last
posting.
Mohammed gave his religion from ideas that both corresponds and
disagrees with the Biblical record. I became aware of this when I was
studying ceramics of many countries in the world.
The fact is, given by an Islamic person, Mohammed DID change one very
important Christian teaching. He said that Jesus had prophesied a
religious leader greater than himself using the following incident
with changed names. John the Baptist, Jesus's cousin, said that one
would come after him "whose shoelaces he was unworthy to unloose." It
is evident that that person was Jesus, stated by John the Baptist to
be the Lamb of God - making a parallel with the sacrificial lamb of
the Temple ceremonies.
That many not be of interest to you. Further, I realise it digresses
from the topic of this newsgroup.
I have to sign off for the weekend.
Gladys