Mahonri's Watercraft

[Calm]

I've got the massive two volume condensed version that you use a magnifying glass with. I'll go check and see if it has anything of value.

add-on: urggghhhh....someone has borrowed and not returned the magnifying glass, had to go dig up the science kit's one to use.

All of the definitions had to do with liquefaction, usually by heat, primarily at high heat such as metal or glass but also grease and also dissolving. There was this really ghastly version of "molten fat" example describing how the fat that came out with the dung could be in liquified form due to the horse raising its body temp by exercise....that was the closest to being quarried I saw.

Edited March 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[blackstrap]

There is evidence of "glass making" around 3500 BC .I understand that lightning can glassify ore. Realizing that our current scripture of Ether is several steps removed from the original so that there may be translation problems, I will assume that molten means what I think it means.It's not like the ancients didn't know how to make a HOT fire.

[zerinus]

I've got the massive two volume condensed version that you use a magnifying glass with. I'll go check and see if it has anything of value.

add-on: urggghhhh....someone has borrowed and not returned the magnifying glass, had to go dig up the science kit's one to use.

All of the definitions had to do with liquefaction, usually by heat, primarily at high heat such as metal or glass but also grease and also dissolving. There was this really ghastly version of "molten fat" example describing how the fat that came out with the dung could be in liquified form due to the horse raising its body temp by exercise....that was the closest to being quarried I saw.

Thank you calmoriah for digging up that information for us. I still remain unrepentant though. I refuse to accept that the transparent stones being "molten out of the rock" means that he literally melted them down. I think it means that he cut, chiselled, or carved them out. If the prophet came told me by revelation that it means that he melted them down, I will accept that. If someone can give me a reasonable explanation as to why he might want to do that, I will accept that too. Other than that, I will stick to my own interpretation of the text.

Edited March 4, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

There is evidence of "glass making" around 3500 BC.

That is irrelevant to the discussion. The brother of Jared wasn't making glass. He was cutting transparent stones (most likely Quartz crystals) out of the mountain for the Lord to touch with His finger so they could glow in the dark. Why would he need to make glass? The scripture tells us that he presented the actual stones to the Lord, not stones made into glass.

I understand that lightning can glassify ore. Realizing that our current scripture of Ether is several steps removed from the original so that there may be translation problems, . . .

I don't buy into the theory of there being translation errors in the Book of Mormon. God doesn't make translation errors. I can accept there being printer's errors, or copying errors, but not translation errors as the manuscript was originally dictated by Joseph Smith.

Edited March 4, 2012 by zerinus

[Mariner]

zerinus,

I note that none of the believing LDS have responded to the issue raised in Post # 145. regarding the disposal of the tons of urine, feces, bilge water, garbage, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane that would have been generated on a 344 day journey while sealed inside a wooden semi-submersible with hatches that could not be opened during the journey.

If you wish to continue the discussion, perhaps attending to these more practical matters would be of more benefit to the doubters than discussing the esoterics of "translation" errors in the Book of Mormon.

[cdowis]

zerinus,

I note that none of the believing LDS have responded to the issue raised in Post # 145. regarding the disposal of the tons of urine, feces, bilge water, garbage, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane that would have been generated on a 344 day journey while sealed inside a wooden semi-submersible with hatches that could not be opened during the journey.

We already answered that question. Stop wasting our time.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

I note that none of the believing LDS have responded to the issue raised in Post # 145. regarding the disposal of the tons of urine, feces, bilge water, garbage, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane that would have been generated on a 344 day journey while sealed inside a wooden semi-submersible with hatches that could not be opened during the journey.

If you wish to continue the discussion, perhaps attending to these more practical matters would be of more benefit to the doubters than discussing the esoterics of "translation" errors in the Book of Mormon.

As I said in another post, I believe that the "hole in the bottom" was for the purpose of disposing of their waste products. The Lord commanded the brother of Jared to make two holes in the ship, one in the top and one in the bottom. The hole in the top was for the purpose of getting fresh air. But the book doesn't explain what the hole in the bottom was meant for. I believe the hole in the bottom was intended to dispose of their waste products. It wouldn't have been just a hole in the ship. It would have had an elaborate mechanism to enable them to do that without flooding the ship. That is the best answer I can think of to that question.

[zerinus]

We already answered that question. Stop wasting our time.

And who are you?

[blackstrap]

I believe that was a Royal We,either that,or someone has a mouse in his pocket.

[zerinus]

I believe that was a Royal We,either that,or someone has a mouse in his pocket.

Hmmm, We are not amused!

[altersteve]

What drives me around the bend when discussing this stuff with Mormon believers is that many of them, such as yourself, express a wholly unfounded believe that God can do anything he wants, while still being a God who is bound by natural law.

I do not believe that "God can do anything he wants," nor have I ever expressed such a belief. Don't tell me what I believe, please.

[Mariner]

We already answered that question. Stop wasting our time.

Are you referring to an answer like the one in Post #182 above? Because if that is your answer, it serves as certain confirmation to anyone who knows anything about ocean voyaging that you are simply reverting to magic again.

If magic was going to be the catch-all response by all of the faithful to the legitimate questions raised on this thread, why not just say so on Page 1 and save folks a lot of time? (To be perfectly frank, that has been the answer from zerinus all along, I suppose.)

[blackstrap]

If a vessel is small and light on the water ,the length of a tree and peaked at the ends,made waterproof,a covered barge,what would it be capable of holding? A family < 10people,a few animals,grains,food stuffs,plants,bees?, drinking water,etc. It is reasonable to consider that the voyage was not one long trip on the oceans,but punctuated by several(many) stops,especially for potable water .There is no explanation about the interior of the vessels so there may have been a couple of decks.

[Mariner]

I do not believe that "God can do anything he wants," nor have I ever expressed such a belief. Don't tell me what I believe, please.

alterstsve,

Please note that my answer you quoted referred to "many of them". If you do not consider yourself among the "many", then I should not have referred to you.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Mariner

[altersteve]

alterstsve,

Please note that my answer you quoted referred to "many of them". If you do not consider yourself among the "many", then I should not have referred to you.

What you said was "many of them, such as yourself."

[blackstrap]

The three ships of Columbus were each as long as a short tree ie. 60 ft+/-.They could carry about 60 tons..Larger ships of 250 ft. were capable of carrying hundreds of men(Redwood tree length) When seen in the light of pictures of the barges of ancient Egypt which were carrying many tons of stone for pyramid construction(roughly the same time frame),the vessels would not necessarily be tiny cramped boxcar types.

[cdowis]

Are you referring to an answer like the one in Post #182 above?

Sigh. I thought you have published peer reviewed articles. Anyway, let me help you, posts 23 and 37.

Edited March 5, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

And who are you?

I am not your mother.

[ERayR]

Are you referring to an answer like the one in Post #182 above? Because if that is your answer, it serves as certain confirmation to anyone who knows anything about ocean voyaging that you are simply reverting to magic again.

If it works....

[WalkerW]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I think focusing on the ultra-literal nature of the barges misses the point that this is in some sense the Jaredite ethnogenesis: their beginning myth as a people (similar to 1 Nephi or Exodus). The creation imagery is potent. The details of the barges are similar in nature to the details of Noah's ark, the Tabernacle, and the temple.

[mfbukowski]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I think focusing on the ultra-literal nature of the barges misses the point that this is in some sense the Jaredite ethnogenesis: their beginning myth as a people (similar to 1 Nephi or Exodus). The creation imagery is potent. The details of the barges are similar in nature to the details of Noah's ark, the Tabernacle, and the temple.

Mariner doesn't understand myth.

Everything to him is literal. For him, a myth is a "fictional account" and therefore that makes the BOM "fiction"

Been there, tried that.

[WalkerW]

Mariner doesn't understand myth.

Everything to him is literal. For him, a myth is a "fictional account" and therefore that makes the BOM "fiction"

Been there, tried that.

That's disappointing. His lack of understanding when it comes to the intersection of myth and history in ancient times is not my problem.

If he does not want to pour over the writings of, say, Mircea Eliade, he could perhaps begin with Karen Armstrong, A Short History of Myth (Vintage, 2005) or Robert Alan Segal, Myth: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Edited March 5, 2012 by WalkerW

[volgadon]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I think focusing on the ultra-literal nature of the barges misses the point that this is in some sense the Jaredite ethnogenesis: their beginning myth as a people (similar to 1 Nephi or Exodus). The creation imagery is potent. The details of the barges are similar in nature to the details of Noah's ark, the Tabernacle, and the temple.

I read that earlier today, very well done. I would have said so on your blog, but couldn't find where to comment,if at all.

[blackstrap]

I ask this in all seriousness. What is the distinction between the details provided in the Biblical creation or Flood "myths" and the Beowulf "myth" ?

[mfbukowski]

. The creation imagery is potent.

Wow congratulations that is a beautiful blog!