Ark Design: Window Covering

[Floodnut]

So, we are not allowed a central ridge opening to admit light?

 

[keyarch]

So, we are not allowed a central ridge opening to admit light?

Sure, you can imagine what is not defined as long as it's not in conflict with what is defined.
In other words, a hole in the roof is ok, but a turret on the roof that sticks up above it isn't, because the finished height was 18 inches (one cubit).
We don't know if there was any color on the outside or if it was bare wood. So, you could have it stained red or something.
Was the roof slate, clay tiles, pure pitch, thatched or what? You pick.
Was there any actual glass or other translucent material used? Maybe.
Anyway, that's just my opinion on how it should be dealt with. I don't think we should go crazy on the things that aren't mentioned though, such that they stand out more than the other things (otherwise they probably would have been mentioned).

 

[FallingWaters]

So, we are not allowed a central ridge opening to admit light?

If the word in chap 6 is correctly translated "roof" and not "window" then we are back to there not being any instructions written down regarding windows.

Noah opened a window to let the bird fly out.
One can safely assume he had built in several windows that opened and closed.

I would assume that the windows would have been above the water line.

 

[Floodnut]

tsohar means an opening to admit light, NOON, in my view.

 

[FallingWaters]

maybe

maybe not

 

[Floodnut]

So where did we get the idea that it means roof? Refresh my memory please.

 

[Floodnut]

On the size of the cubit: Our researchers have concluded that Noah probably used the "ROYAL CUBIT" in this structure, so our ark will be longer than the usual small version of 450 feet lont by 75 wide by 45 tall.
To view the article with abundant research behind it, go to www.worldwideflood.com

 

[keyarch]

On the size of the cubit: Our researchers have concluded that Noah probably used the "ROYAL CUBIT" in this structure, so our ark will be longer than the usual small version of 450 feet lont by 75 wide by 45 tall.
To view the article with abundant research behind it, go to www.worldwideflood.com

I just looked up a "royal cubit" from Egyptian times and found it to be understood at about 20.63 inches rather than the regular cubit of 18 inches or the Greek cubit at 18.22 inches. It makes sense that the writers would have understood it from a Royal Cubit experience.
Thanks for helping me understand the difference.

I think I should stick to feet and inches when drawing my architectural plans though. Cubits would cause too much confusion.

 

[FallingWaters]

So where did we get the idea that it means roof? Refresh my memory please.

Post #14, by keyarch

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30040401&postcount=14

 

[Floodnut]

This is the way I see it based on my study using 'BibleWorks' software to evaluate the Hebrew and Greek for the passages.

• The word in Hebrew used in Gen. 6:16 (Hol7101 ) means “covering, roof” It’s the only place in the Old Testament that it’s used.
• The word in Hebrew used in Gen. 8:6 (Hol2550) means“hole in the wall for air and light”.

* * * * *
To suggest that there was any kind of “glass” or opening in the roof etc. is going beyond what the text is telling us. We can’t even say what kind of ventilation holes there were, only that there was something the raven passed thru. We are basically given the overall shape of the Ark and that it had at least one opening that was sealed and reopened it at the end. Anything else is conjecture.

Actually, in my view it is conjecture to say that tsohar means roof. The best Hebrew scholars in the world have said that it means window. Moreover, tsohar is never translated as roof anywhere in the Bible. In fact it is translated as midday once, as noon eleven times, as noonday 10 times, and as window once.
The word ark in an of itself means an enclosed container, whether a lidded basket, or a treasure chest, or an ocean-going cargo vessel. So the roof is included in the term ark. To add that a roof is to be on the "enclosed container" would be redundant.
This verse (16) is explaning particulars of the container, and variations from its "CLOSED CONTAINER" nature: the noon, which is to be finished a cubit above, and the door, or opening in the sides, and the three main levels of the interior of the container.
There is no justification for abandoning the idea that the TSOHAR is a sort of ridge opening serving by definition as a "NOON," or a means of admitting light.
Tsohar occurs in I Kings 18:29 (mid day) and for example in Genesis 43:16, 25 (noon); Job 5:14 (noon day), Jer 20:16 (noon tide). Tsohar NEVER means roof.
It is also conjecture to say that Noah's window (Challon) through which the birds were released and retrieved was in the END of the Ark. The word Challon occurs 31 times and most often means something through which you can look. This type window is not in the top, but in the side OR ends of the ark. The door is specified as being in the side, but not the window. However neither is it said to be in the end. Either choice is fine, and either choice is conjecture. But if we are going to depict it, then it must be somewhere.

 

[billwald]

"We know that the ark was 300 cubits (450 ft.) long; 50 cubits (75 ft.) wide; and 45 cubits (45 ft.) high."

I know that wood doesn't have sufficient tensile strength to build a ship this size. It would break up in a seaway.

 

[keyarch]

"We know that the ark was 300 cubits (450 ft.) long; 50 cubits (75 ft.) wide; and 45 cubits (45 ft.) high."

I know that wood doesn't have sufficient tensile strength to build a ship this size. It would break up in a seaway.

Should we trust your knowledge and your math over the Word of God?

 

[Brennan]

Man I can't believe you made a typo Billwald, nothing you ever say here will be given a chance again.

 

[FallingWaters]

"We know that the ark was 300 cubits (450 ft.) long; 50 cubits (75 ft.) wide; and 45 cubits (45 ft.) high."

I know that wood doesn't have sufficient tensile strength to build a ship this size. It would break up in a seaway.

So you don't believe the Bible is true when it says Noah built an ark out of wood in those dimensions?

 

[laptoppop]

The tensile strength of a structure is drastically more complicated than just the tensile strength of the raw materials. My high school used to have a competition for building bridges out of toothpics -- you could stand on some of them. It was pretty cool.

 

[keyarch]

Man I can't believe you made a typo Billwald, nothing you ever say here will be given a chance again.

lol. I know it was a typo, but I couldn't resist the example of human error.

 

[Brennan]

Don't say I never stick up for you crazy YECs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_ship

mammoth ships with nine masts, four decks, and were capable of accommodating more than 500 passengers, as well as a massive amount of cargo. At the time, these ships were by far the largest marine craft the world had ever seen.
Zheng He's fleet included 62 treasure ships, with some reaching 146 m (600 ft) long and 55 m (180 ft) wide. On the ships, there were over 28,000 people

That's 17th Century btw, so definitely wood.

 

[KerrMetric]

Don't say I never stick up for you crazy YECs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_ship

That's 17th Century btw, so definitely wood.

And the modern consensus is that they did not exist. They were never built. There is also a controversy over the length units employed at the time and that the descriptions of these vessels were in a literary document not a textbook.

 

[Brennan]

I don't see anything suggesting that this is a myth over a check of half a dozen sites. Lengths given vary from 400 to 600 feet however. I had heard that a wreck of one had been found, but that was on a TV programme some years ago...

 

[KerrMetric]

I don't see anything suggesting that this is a myth over a check of half a dozen sites. Lengths given vary from 400 to 600 feet however. I had heard that a wreck of one had been found, but that was on a TV programme some years ago...

The wreck I heard about was a far smaller ship of supposedly similar design. The fact the Royal Navy hundreds of years later with metal supports couldn't get them to work speaks volumes. And shipbuilding technology in post industrial revolution England was far beyond medieval China.

I read this a year or two ago (about them being myth) but I cannot remember where.

But I did read this a few minutes ago:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/archeology2.html