Posted on 09/13/2009 2:54:05 PM PDT by greyfoxx39
As for the article itself, I note that the author repeatedly asserts that the Jaredite barges were designed to turn upside down. Does the Book of Mormon ever make such a claim?
_____________________________________
WOW I saw the movie about this
Pirates of the Caribean: The End of the World or something...
The bost did tip upside sown...
Oh, joy...more proof the bom is twoo...
:)
Nonsense. Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon provides a "design" for Noah's ark or the Jaredite barges.
The Bible tells us the overall dimensions of the ark: 300 by 50 by 30 "cubits." (Presumably, a cubit is about 18 inches, but we cannot even be sure of that.) It tells us the vessel had several stories, a door, a window (!), a covering of some sort (Genesis 8:13), and interior rooms. It was sealed inside and out with pitch.
Beyond that, we know very little about the ark. What was the shape of the hull? Dd it have a lean or a bluff bow? What was its draft? Did it have a keel? How was it framed, braced, and planked? What is "gopher wood"? What kinds of tools were used to construct the vessel? How many animals were taken aboard? How much food and water were stored aboard? How was ventilation provided?
Such questions can be multiplied indefinitely. Although attempts have been made to address these issues, at this point all we have is conjecture. Unless and until we find the ark itself—or God provides more information— we cannot know much for certain about Noah's ark.
Our knowledge of the Jaredite barges is similarly incomplete. The Book of Mormon does not provide enough information for us to reconstruct the barges. We are told that they were the "length of a tree"; they were "light upon the water"; they were "tight like unto a dish"; and that their ends were "peaked." Each barge had a single door and two openings in the top and bottom, at least one of which could be stoppered in some way. Although the text refers to steering the barges (Ether 2:19), there is no information about how this was done.
We are told that about 22 persons embarked on eight barges; but we do not know how many or what kinds of animals were taken aboard. Indeed, many of the same questions that might be asked about Noah's ark might also be asked about the Jaredite barges.
Unless and until we find remains of the barges—or God provides more information— we cannot know much for certain about them.
I believe in the Jaredite barges for much the same reason as I believe in Noah's ark: I accept both the Bible and the Book of Mormon as the word of God.
Then why are all of the important covenants and practices of MORMONism NOT found in the BoM?
Heck; MORMONism could just cut that 'book' adrift and none would be the wiser!
Significant difference logo, bom specified a hole in the bottom of the ‘barge’. Boats don’t float very well with such a feature installed.
No, the author brings up almost 40 points for consideration here. So "to be fair" -- re: which points were similar to problems Noah had -- I asked, "OK how many of these near 40 points are ones that have a direct carry-over to problems Noah may have experienced?" The answer was in just 5 of the points this author made (points 21-24, and 33).
If you look at the way this author categorizes these problems, he essentially breaks them down into four prominent groupings.
The other three major problems were:
1. Its designed upside-down ventures (Ether 2:24-25; 6:5-7)
2. Its poor original "God-breathed" design (2:15-19)
3. Its poor original "God-breathed" design left unaddressed before departing
Where does the author address these issues?
1. The author deals with the upside-down questions with points 25-26, 29-31, 34-37. Logo, NONE of these constant upside-down facets were issues according to the ark's design.
2. He deals with poor original design issues with points 1-12. Logo, we don't see Noah going back to God, saying, "Hey, you screwed up on some major life-and-death considerations here." (do we?)
3. He deals with remnant, unaddressed design issues that would have been inherent/prominent for a "tight as a dish" vessel in points 13, 15-20, 27. Logo, NONE of these single-hole issues were anything Noah would have had to deal with.
What were the prominent problems that simple blind faith has trouble surpassing?
1. Having a vessel designed to roll underneath the waves and spend considerable time like "a whale" (Ether 2:24) underneath those waves as the vessel rolls upside down, etc. 9 of points 25-37 shred the notion of such a vessel.
2. Original obvious-as-day design problems of access to air; lack of light; and steering -- all things clearly NOT addressed from the get-go; and weren't addressed by the builders as they went along despite the obviousness of these problems. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith presents his god as a forgetful or neglectful designer -- a bumbling, afterthought Mormon god who was fortunate he had a "consultant" like Jared to catch the divine designer's fatal flaws.
(And, as if Jared was some "brilliant" ship planner, material gathered, 8-vessel constructor in the first place. I mean, how could one work on something for months-on-end, & not notice its superb suffocation & dark-as-night internal features? As the author says, Is it sensible that all of these shipbuilders... waited until the end to realize, Oh, wait! We forgot that our animals will need to breathe in here.)
Re: Noah's ark: How was ventilation provided? Such questions can be multiplied indefinitely...Our knowledge of the Jaredite barges is similarly incomplete. The Book of Mormon does not provide enough information for us to reconstruct the barges. We are told that they were the "length of a tree"; they were "light upon the water"; they were "tight like unto a dish" [Logophile]
3. Ether 6:7: Look, it didn't matter that "no water could hurt them" -- well directly that is -- when the wavy water could indirectly hurt them in all kinds of ways. And just because Genesis doesn't address all ventilation considerations doesn't mean you can't address what the text of Ether 2:20 does say as God's "fix it" response:
when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. (Ether 2:20)
The author asks in points 15 & following:
15. How were the birds to notify Jared that they "suffered for air?" For the reasoning person, it gets worse. People and animals obviously keep breathing at night, while sleeping.
16. What if they "suffer for air" while everyone is asleep? Is that a good time to need to "unstop the hole?"
17. Did the Jaredites have "Hole Unstoppers" on guard while everyone else slept? Did the unstopper continually check to be sure that sleeping people and animals, especially birds, were still breathing? "... unstop the hole..." Also, "thou shalt make a hole in the top and also in the bottom." (2:20) Note that it says the hole, that is, a hole, as in one hole. (The hole at the bottom clearly doesn't count except when the ship flops upside down in high seas.) Now picture in your mind traveling with flocks of flatulent sheep and herds of flatulent goats and cattle) in a boat with ONE functioning air hole.
And, as for the single-hole dish design:
19. How would air enter and exit the same single hole supplying the entire barge/boat? There's a related problem: Air doesn't readily enter a closed space. Why not? Because the space is already full of air -- In the Jaredites' case, warmer, body-heated air that exerts greater-than-outside pressure thus resisting incoming air. People taking car-trips with kids partially open at least two windows for air movement.
27. How would you pour all the urine and feces out of one hole -- for a year? Could reason and common sense be additionally battered?
“Jaredite Barge Contest Winners,” New Era, Jul 1975, 13
The New Era proudly announces the winners of the Design-a-Jaredite-Barge Contest. There were many interesting and beautiful entries from many parts of the United States and from other countries. Although the three winning models shown here do not pretend to show what the Jaredite barges actually looked like, they do show thought and care in design and a firm understanding and reading of the Book of Mormon scriptures that describe the Jaredite barges. We wish to compliment all those who participated and who learned from this experience."
Uh, not really -- at least not the first place winner -- who came to the conclusion upon reading the obvious unfine print in the BoM: “No doubt about it, there were holes in the top and the bottom." [Gee, really? The text plainly says that?]
His next assessment?: Some people suggest two holes were called for because the barges sometimes turned over. In my opinion this would have been catastrophic, especially when you consider that the barge was full of people, food, water, and animals.
OK, let me get this straight. He's just read in the BoM that holes were to placed in the top & bottom of 8 vessels. So who are the lame-brain "let's read something completely different into the text" folks? (But certainly, I could see the motivation for these lame-brainers to want to change the text...I mean, after all, what an amateur shipbuilder's dream! Build vessels with stoppable holes in the bottom!)
So, this kid doesn't seem to stop & think here. I mean, what's the only purpose a vessel could have for a hole in its bottom? Answer? The "bottom" wasn't always "bottom" -- sometimes it pitched & rolled & remained upside down underwater.
It's almost as if he didn't read Ether 2:24-25 and 6:5-7 which describes waves crashing upon the vessels; the vessels acting like a whale in the sea; mentions three times being driven to "the depths" of the sea...all of these are wave actions upon a "tight as a dish" & thereby is actually consistent then with a possible motivation for wanting a hole in the bottom. It's almost like a rolling vessel.
But, I have to give the kid credit for one thing many Lds adults have flunked on: He realized something obvious applicable to such a vessel no matter what (even tho he thought it'd only apply to a 2-hole-in-the-top vessel). And that's this observation re: "turned-over barges": ...the barges sometimes turned over. In my opinion this would have been catastrophic, especially when you consider that the barge was full of people, food, water, and animals.
Yes, sir, exactly, right! (And this was the same conclusions the author GreyFoxx posted in this thread -- see points 25-26, 29-31, and 34-37).
(Sometimes, Lds youth will back up into an obvious conclusion that's escaped so many older generation Mormons. Lds can't have it both ways: They can't on the one hand, try to make the case for a hole in the bottom of such a vessel -- and then pretend the turned "catastrophic" effects upon people, food, water & animals inside didn't play out -- if in fact, that purposeful design came about -- as Ether 2:24-25 & 6:5-7 says it did).
LOL, guess you won’t need those boats afterall.
If the barge is airtight, it will float just fine so long as both holes are not open at the same time.
Alternatively, a barge would float if the lower opening is located within a partial enclosure—a tube or a well—that extends to a level above the waterline. (Google the term "moon pool" to see what I mean.)
Airtight = suffocation
Alternatively, a barge would float if the lower opening is located within a partial enclosure—a tube or a well—that extends to a level above the waterline. (Google the term "moon pool" to see what I mean.)
So now you are trying to convince us that in addition to all the other mythology surrounding the Jaredite barges, they also had airlocks. Didn't anyone ever tell you that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging LOL.
Not so. It would depend on the enclosed volume of the vessel, the number of humans and animals aboard, and the period of time during which the upper hole is kept stoppered.
So now you are trying to convince us that in addition to all the other mythology surrounding the Jaredite barges, they also had airlocks. Didn't anyone ever tell you that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging LOL.
I said nothing about airlocks.
Run the numbers. lack of O2 is only one component of the equation, CO2 buildup caused even more problems. O2 concentrations of 19.5% at sea level are IDLH conditions for workers, and it doesn't take much for a air-tight chamber with people and animals to deplete 2% of the oxygen (normal O2 about 22% at sea level
I said nothing about airlocks.
They are of necessity for a moon pool to function within a boat - do your research better.
What numbers? The text provides no data that would allow us to "run the numbers."
They are of necessity for a moon pool to function within a boat - do your research better.
You are mistaken.
Pretty lame.
The volume in Litre (L) in cubic metre (m3)is: 1000L/m3.
21 % of the atmosphere consists of O2 by volume. So, 1000 L of air consists of 0.21 x 1000 L = 210 L of O2.
1 mole of any gas at STP has a volume of 22.4 L. Therefore 210 L of O2 is 210L/22.4L/mole = 9.38 mole.
The mass of 9.38 mole of Oxygen is: 9.38 mole x 32 gram/mole = 300 gram or 0.3 kg.
According to NASA the average person needs 0.84 kg of O2 per day (day and night activity).
So for a room 12 ft wide x 12 ft long x 8 ft ceiling
3.6 m x 3.6 m x 2.4 m = 31.1m3
would last 1 person about 2.6 days, divide that by the total number if more than one. Does not include respiration by animals or other biological activity.
Now consider crossing the pacific ocean, from the article of the thread "Ether describes heavy seas (" . . . they were many times buried in the depths of the sea, because of the mountain waves which broke upon them" 6:6). So these boats were crashing around under water, occasionally flipping upside down (thus the need for a hole in the bottom which could be opened as an air hole when the boat flopped over)." Pacific storms would keep them bottled up for days - still having problems doing the math?
They are of necessity for a moon pool to function within a boat - do your research better.
You are mistaken.
Google 'moon pools' Logo. You will find that even your best scenario would require the sides of the moon pool to be quite deep ( greater than the draft of the ship by a margin of safety) in order not to sink the boat.
The hole in the bottom of the barge would have been useful (one might say essential) for the disposal of human and animal wastes.
The author of the original article insists repeatedly that the barges must have flipped, flopped, or turned upside down. But the text does not say so. Hence, 13 of the author's 40 numbered questions are based on a dubious premise.
The problem is not the math but the data, or rather the lack of data:
1. You do not know the volume of the vessels.
2. You do not know the types and numbers of animals on board.
3. You do not know how long the air hole had to be stoppered.
4. You do not know how long it took to replenish the air when the hole was unstopped.
So these boats were crashing around under water, occasionally flipping upside down (thus the need for a hole in the bottom which could be opened as an air hole when the boat flopped over)."
How often did they flip upside down?
Google 'moon pools' Logo. You will find that even your best scenario would require the sides of the moon pool to be quite deep ( greater than the draft of the ship by a margin of safety) in order not to sink the boat.
At least we agree that a moon pool does not require an airlock; that is progress.
We also agree that the sides of an airlock-free moon pool (assuming the barges had moon pools) would have to be higher than the draft of the vessel.
So tell me, what was the draft of a barge?
Actually my approach was conservative - man at rest.
1. You do not know the volume of the vessels.
To be sure they had to be big to handle the flocks, people and supplies. One sheep will eat over 1000 lbs of food in a year, let alone the amount of water needed.
2. You do not know the types and numbers of animals on board.
Once again, a lame assertion. Are you making excuses for the bom? Flocks of sheep, live fish, birds as well as other beasts of burden (camels and donkeys). Plus the supplies necessary to get them through one year.
3. You do not know how long the air hole had to be stoppered.
As noted, even short periods during storms will result in rapid depletion of the oxygen - "many times buried in the depths of the sea" (6:6) and "mountain waves" (2:24) Oceanic storms for a drifting craft will last for days - add the stress of increased oxygen consumption of people and animals during these storms (I'm sure being 'buried in the depths of the sea' will get anyones heart racing). And those are the basics. I've noted other biological consumption of oxygen which you apparently fail to comprehend. One of these is aerobic and anaerobic bacteria processing the stored food for the livestock and their waste. Ever been to a stockyard? Take a good wiff the next time. Anaerobic activity creates an even greater hazard - hydrogen sulphide, a heavy gas that is difficult to get out of a confined area without active ventlation - the topic of your next point
4. You do not know how long it took to replenish the air when the hole was unstopped.
To replenish such a vessel, it would require an extremely large hole - and these holes are an after thought in the mormon god's mind from the bom narrative. A hole will only be slightly better than diffusion for oxygen exchange and will do nothing for heavier gasses like H2S and CO2. Don't believe me - next time you go down the street, take a close look a the workers in confined areas beneath manholes. What do they all have? They have a BIG fan and ducting forcing fresh air into that space. A passive 'hole' in the top of an otherwise air tight ship after an expended period will not 'replenish' the air.
How often did they flip upside down?
Apparently often enough for the mormon god to retrofit these barges with two 'openings'
At least we agree that a moon pool does not require an airlock; that is progress. We also agree that the sides of an airlock-free moon pool (assuming the barges had moon pools) would have to be higher than the draft of the vessel. So tell me, what was the draft of a barge?
When one considers the tons of food, supplies, animals and people each would need, common sense would indicate that it would be riding low in the water. If it rode higher in the water it would be prone to tipping over easily (higher center of gravity) But we already see that the mormon god retrofit instructions do not include instruction to add 'sides' to the moon pool. Secondly, absent an airlock mechanism of some kind, being submerged as claimed in the bom, water would come gushing in rather easily (along with interior air exiting).
So build/design us an airtight barge that can carry a herd of sheep, all their provisions for a year (food and water), people to care for the sheep (with food and water for themselves)capable of handling Pacific storms (being sealed for several days), flipped over a couple of times each storm and perhaps you may have a reasonable arguement.
Moreover, your assumptions that the barges were "big" and that they rode "low in the water" seem to be contradicted by the text. According to Ether 2:16, the barges "were small, and they were light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water."
Before trying to prove the Book of Mormon wrong, you might want to look at what it actually says. Allow me to suggest the following for starters:
1. Barge size. Find in the text of the Book of Mormon the dimensions of the barges, their length, beam, draft, displacement, etc. (SI units would be nice, but cubits are OK.)
2. Hole design. Locate a passage in the text of the Book of Mormon which gives the size, shape, and precise location of the holes in the tops and bottoms of the barges. While you are at it, see if you can find any information about the means of stoppering the holes.
3. Barge stability. Cite a passage in the text of the Book of Mormon which refers to the barges flipping or turning upside down. (It would be helpful if you can find a reference to the number of times the barges flipped.)
4. Animals. Show where the Jaredites are said to have taken donkeys, sheep, or camels with them. Note that "flock" does not necessary imply sheep; birds can also comprise a flock. Likewise, "herd" can refer to any group of mammals. (It would be very helpful if you can cite the species and numbers of animals that were taken aboard.)
By all means, take your time. I'll check back in a few days to see what you have found.
Moreover, your assumptions that the barges were "big" and that they rode "low in the water" seem to be contradicted by the text. According to Ether 2:16, the barges "were small, and they were light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water."
Before trying to prove the Book of Mormon wrong, you might want to look at what it actually says. Allow me to suggest the following for starters:
1. Barge size. Find in the text of the Book of Mormon the dimensions of the barges, their length, beam, draft, displacement, etc. (SI units would be nice, but cubits are OK.)
2. Hole design. Locate a passage in the text of the Book of Mormon which gives the size, shape, and precise location of the holes in the tops and bottoms of the barges. While you are at it, see if you can find any information about the means of stoppering the holes.
3. Barge stability. Cite a passage in the text of the Book of Mormon which refers to the barges flipping or turning upside down. (It would be helpful if you can find a reference to the number of times the barges flipped.)
4. Animals. Show where the Jaredites are said to have taken donkeys, sheep, or camels with them. Note that "flock" does not necessary imply sheep; birds can also comprise a flock. Likewise, "herd" can refer to any group of mammals. (It would be very helpful if you can cite the species and numbers of animals that were taken aboard.)
By all means, take your time. I'll check back in a few days to see what you have found.
So, you claim to know the size and demand I prove it LOL. Run the numbers Logo. If they were small, how could they carry the livestock and their food and water for a year (1 sheep/goat goes through some 1000 lbs of feed per year). If they are small - as you claim - then they would have even a smaller period of oxygen sustainment when riding out a storm (remember, I provided rough estimates for displacement roughly the size of a house for ONE human at rest). Finally, show me a barge that can contain the tons of supplies and animals the text infers and still ride 'high' on the water. Go ahead and show me that the Jaredite design is feasable using TODAY'S technology. It won't fly (nor will it float either).
Hole design - lol, you already claimed it was a 'moon pool' design, which I pointed out had 2 requirements, dependent upon application, necessary to keep it afloat. From the bom text it is clear the holes were an afterthought of the mormon god (as well as the builders).
Logo, you tout the infallability of the bom on this issue, yet overlook the impossiblity and implausability of their construction. Perhaps you can address the points made in the article too while you are at it.
As for trying to prove the bom wrong, I don't have to try very hard - it does a nice job on its own accomplishing that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.