How Many Feet Is 60 Cubits? Best 173 Answer

Oh my…

The parameters measure and unit were specified in an invalid combination. Please click here to return to the home page.

Oh my…

The parameters measure and unit were specified in an invalid combination. Please click here to return to the home page.

abstract

Historical dimensions for the cubit are provided by scripture and pyramid documentation. Additional Middle Eastern dimensions are found in other early documents. Two main dimensions emerge from the story of the Elle. The first is the anthropological or short cubit and the second is the architectural or long cubit. The wide geographical area and long chronological period suggest that the dimensions of the cubit varied over time and geographical area. Greek and Roman conquests led to standardization. A study by Francis Galton, which is based on his investigations into anthropometry, provides newer dimensions. The subjects for Galton’s study and those of several other researchers lacked adequate sample descriptions to establish a satisfactory ulna/forearm dimension. Given the decline of the yardstick in today’s world, this finding is not surprising. Contemporary measurements from military and civilian anthropometry for the forearm and hand allow comparison to the ancient unit. Although there does not seem to be an urgent need for a forearm-hand/cubit measurement, the half-yard or half-meter unit appears to be a useful unit that could find more application.

1 Introduction

If we know anything about the cubit today, it probably comes from an acquaintance with the Hebrew Scriptures and/or the Old and New Testaments. People have heard or read about the dimensions of Noah’s Ark or Solomon’s Temple. Acquaintance with Egyptian history may have brought some awareness of the dimensions of pyramids and temples. The cubit was a common unit in the early East. It continues in some places today, but has been replaced less prominently by modern units. The early use of the cubit throughout the Middle East showed different dimensions for this unit. Some variants can be better checked using Bible passages. Other variants can also be found in numerous secular documents, but these are less well known and less accessible than the Scriptures.

The English word elle (′kyü-bǝt) seems to be derived from the Latin cubitum for elbow. It was πήχυς (pay′-kus) in Greek. The ulna is based on a human trait – the length of the forearm from the tip of the middle finger to the end of the elbow. Many definitions seem to agree on this aspect of unity, but there is no universal standard as there are many ways to determine a cubit. It can be measured from the elbow to the base of the hand, from the elbow to a distance between the extended thumb and little finger, or from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. These alternative descriptions further complicate the determination of a specific unit of measurement, the cubit. In the following, the latter description, elbow to the tip of the middle finger, designates the common unit.

The human figure (typically male) was the basis for many dimensions. As an example, the foot is recognized immediately [1]. Onyx (nail) is less common, but onyx remains a medical term. The Old English ynche, ynch, unce or inch was a thumb’s breadth. The anthropomorphic basis of many standards supports the statement “man is the measure of all things” attributed to Protagoras after Plato in Theaetetus [2]. No wonder the cubit was initially used for measurement as it is ubiquitously available for use. We always own unity. Human figure entities are arbitrary but universal, particularly effective through their bodily reference, which provides an immediately accessible raw scale.

The cubit forms a comfortable middle unit between foot and yard. The English yard could be thought of as a double cubit measuring 12 palms, about 90 cm or 36 inches measured from the middle of a man’s body to the fingertips of an outstretched arm [3]. This is a useful method of extending the body held with a cloth in the center to an outstretched hand (two cubits) or across the body to both outstretched hands (four cubits, as given in Exodus 26:1-2, 7-8). to eat. The English cubit is a larger variant of the cubit, consisting of 15 palms, 114 cm, or 45 inches. It roughly corresponds to the cloth size of early Scotlands. A man’s stride, defined as left-to-right steps, produces a double cubit, or about a yard [1].

The dimensions in Table 1 give the (approximate) relative lengths for meters, yards, cubits and feet.

meter yard cubit foot

The cubit was a basic unit in early Israel and the surrounding Middle Eastern countries. It is אטה in Hebrew (pronounced am-mah′) which can be interpreted as “the mother of the arm” or origin, i.e. the forearm/cubit. Selected biblical references [4] for the cubit include these five well-known choices. (1) And God said to Noah: I have determined to put an end to all flesh; for the earth is full of power through them; Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark out of gopher wood; Make rooms in the ark and cover them with pitch inside and out. This is how you shall do it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. (Genesis 6:13-15 RSV) (2) They shall make an ark of acacia wood; Its length shall be two and a half cubits, its breadth a cubit and a half, and its height a cubit and a half. And you shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and out you shall overlay it, and you shall make a band of gold all around it. (Exodus 25:10-11 RSV)(3)And he made the court; for the south side the curtains of the court were of fine twined linen, a hundred cubits; their pillars were twenty and their bases twenty of bronze, but the hooks of the pillars and their ledges were of silver. And for the north side a hundred cubits, its pillars twenty, its bases twenty of bronze, but the hooks of the pillars and their bands were of silver. And for the west side there were curtains of fifty cubits, their pillars ten, and their bases ten; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets were of silver. And fifty cubits for the eastern front. (Exodus 38:9-13)(4) And Saul and the men of Israel were gathered, and encamped in the valley of Elah, and arrayed themselves in battle line against the Philistines. And the Philistines stood on the mountain on one side, and Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with a valley between them. And there came out of the Philistine camp a warrior named Goliath from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (1 Samuel 17:2-4 LB)(5)In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Siw, the second month he began the house to build the Lord. The house that King Solomon built for the Lord was sixty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high. (1 Kings 6:1-2 RSV)

The cubit determined a measure of many aspects of life in biblical history. The journey of a Sabbath day measured 2,000 cubits (Exodus 16:29). This statue forbade a travel restriction on the Sabbath. The distance between the Ark of the Covenant and the camp of the Israelites during the Exodus is estimated at about 914 meters, 1,000 yards, or 2,000 cubits [5].

Biblical quotations and historical archeology indicate that there was more than one standard cubit length in Israel. In 2 Chronicles 3:3 the quote may imply Ellen of the old standard. Ezekiel 40:5; 43:13 can indicate the cubit plus a hand. Archaeological evidence from Israel [6] suggests that 52.5 cm = 20.67 and 45 cm = 17.71 represent the long and short cubits of that time and place. For some scholars, the Egyptian cubit was the standard measure of length in Biblical times. Biblical sojourn/exodus, war and trade are likely reasons this length was used elsewhere.

The Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, and many other structures are described in cubits in the Bible. These also occur with two different cubit measurements, the long or royal (architectural) cubit and the short (anthropological) cubit. Scholars have used various means to determine the length of these cubits with some success. The long cubit is about 52.5 centimeters and the short cubit about 45 centimeters [4, 5].

The Israelite long cubit corresponds to the Egyptian cubit of 7 hands with 6 hands for the shorter one. Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible [7, page 1373] states: “…Archaeology and literature indicate an average length of the common cubit of 44.5 cm (17.5 inches).” This citation also gives a range of 42 -48 cm (17-19 inches) for the cubit. The range is an important parameter because it indicates the variation that will affect that measure. Variation indicates multiple influences.

The English usage of elle is difficult to determine. The exact length of this measurement depends on whether it is the full length from the elbow to the tip of the longest finger, or one of the alternatives previously described. Some scholars suggest that the longer dimension was the original cubit, which was 20.24 inches for the common cubit and 21.88 inches for the sacred cubit, or one standard cubit from the elbow to the end of the middle finger (20′) and one Ulna of the lower forearm makes from the elbow to the heel of the hand (12″). These are the same measurements for Egyptian measurements according to Easton’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary [9]. The Interpreter’s Bible [10, page 154] gives the Common Scale length as 444.25 mm or 17.49 inches and Ezekiel’s Scale as 518.29 mm or 20.405 inches for the two cubit lengths. Inasmuch as the Romans colonized England, the aforementioned shorter cubit may have been the standard.

A rod or staff is called גמד (gomedh) in Judges 3:16, meaning a cut or something cut off. The LXX (Septuagint) and Vulgate give “span,” which is defined in the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament as a measure of distance (the forearm cubit), approximately 18 inches (nearly 0.5 meters). Among the several cubits mentioned is a man’s cubit, or common cubit in Deut. 3:11 and the legal cubit or sanctuary cubit described in Ezra 40:5 [6].

Barrios [5] gives a summary of linear Hebrew measurements (see Table 2).

Measure Common standard of Ezekiel Standard millimeters inches millimeters inches cubits 444.25 17.49 518.29 20.405 wingspan 222.12 8.745 259.14 10.202 palms 74.04 2.91 74.04 2.91 fingers 18.51 0.72 18 .51 0.72

Barrois [5] states that the dimension of the cubit can only be determined by deduction and not directly from conflicting information. He reports that the aqueduct of Hezekiah was 1,200 cubits long according to the inscription from Siloam. Its length is given as 5333.1 meters or 1,749 feet. Absolute certainty about the length of a cubit cannot be ascertained, and there is much disagreement about this length, causing much objection and debate. Some writers make the cubit eighteen inches, and others twenty, twenty-one inches, or more. This appears to be of vital importance to those attempting to determine the exact modern equivalent of measurements from Scripture. Taking 21 inches for the cubit, the ark that Noah built would be 525 feet long, 87 feet 6 inches wide, and 52 feet 6 inches high. Using the standard 20′ cubits and 9′′ wingspan, Goliath’s height would be 6 cubits plus a wingspan of about 10 feet and 9 inches. With a cubit of 18”, he is 9 feet 9 inches tall. The Septuagint, LXX, suggests 4 cubits plus a span, or a more modest 6 feet 9 inches. Depending on which dimension is selected, there are many implications [7]. The story requires young David to kill a giant and not just a taller than average man! Likewise, for many other dimensions and descriptions found in early writing, the larger the dimensions, the better the story. Sacred dimensions require solemn, awe-inspiring dimensions, but this thwarts precise determination.

Rabbi David ben Zimra (1461–1571) claimed that the Foundation Stone and Holy of Holies are in the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. This view is widely accepted, but with disagreements about the precise location known as the “central location theory,” some of these differences result from strong disagreements about the dimension of the cubit. Kaufman [11] argues against the “central position theory” and defends a cubit measuring 0.437 meters (1.43 feet). David [12] argues for a temple cubit of 0.56 meters (1.84 feet).

Differences in the length of the cubit arise from different historical times and geographic locations in Biblical times. These very long periods of time and different geographic locations make it frustrating to determine a more accurate cubit length. Israel’s location between Egypt and Mesopotamia suggests that many influences came into play in this well-traveled area over the course of hundreds and hundreds of years. These influences likely contributed to the different dimensions encountered over this long period of time. Stories, myths and dramas add their share.

The earliest written mention of the cubit is in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The incomplete text survives in twelve tablets written in Akkadian found at Nineveh in the library of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria (669–630? BC). Other fragments from 1800 BC. contain parts of the text, and more fragments mentioning this epic have been found from the 2nd millennium B.C. found. The yardstick is specifically mentioned in the text when a flood is described as remarkably similar to and older than the flood mentioned in Genesis. Evidently, the cubit was an early and important Near Eastern unit fundamental to the transmission of linear measurements, as shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4.

Great Pyramid of Giza, Khufu Second Khafra granite temple Third Pyramid of Menkaura Peribolus Walls Great Pyramid of Dahshur (?) Pyramid of Saqqara Pepi Fourth to Sixth Dynasty, Middle Ages

Egyptian common cubit 18.24 in. Egyptian royal cubit 20.64 in. Great Assyrian cubit 25.26 in. Beládi cubit 21.88 in. Black cubit 20.28 in

2. Egypt

The Egyptian hieroglyph for the cubit shows the symbol of a forearm. However, the Egyptian cubit was longer than a typical forearm. It seems to have consisted of 7 palms, each with 4 fingers in a total of 28 parts and was about 52.3-52.4 cm long according to Arnold [13].

The earliest attested standard measure comes from the pyramids of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. It was the royal cubit (mahe). The royal cubit was 523–525 mm (20.6–20.64 in) long and divided into 7 palms, each with 4 digits, giving a total of 28-part measure. The royal cubit is known from Old Kingdom architecture, dating at least as early as the construction of the step pyramid by Djoser around 2,700 BC. [13–15].

Petrie [15] begins chapter XX as follows. Cubit and Digit font values.

The measurements listed on the previous pages provide material for an exact determination of the Egyptian cubit. From such a set of exact measurements, not only can the earliest value of the cubit be ascertained, but also the extent of its variations as used by different architects.

Petrie’s methods and insights are described so clearly and concisely that they can best be quoted as follows.

The King’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid is undoubtedly the most important source for the value of the common cubit; this is the most accurately processed, best preserved, and most accurately measured of any data known.

If we arrange the examples chronologically, the yardstick used was as given in Table 3.

Petrie writes the following.

For the yardstick I had derived ([16, page 50]) from a body of material, good, bad and indifferent, 20-64.02 as the best result I could get; about a dozen of the actually known cubits make 20–65 01; and now we find from the earliest monuments that the cubit first used is 20-62, and the mean from the seven buildings named is 20-63 b 0.02-. … Altogether we can assume 20- as the original value and assume that it has slightly increased on average over time due to repeated copying. (pages 178-179).

3. Greek and Roman comparisons

In the writings of Eratosthenes, the Greek σχο νος (schoe′nus) was 12,000 royal cubits with an assumed length of 0.525 metres. The Stade was 300 royal cubits or 157.5 meters or 516.73 feet long. Eratosthenes gave 250,000 stages for the circumference of the earth. Strabo and Pliny gave 252,000 stages for the circumference and 700 stages for a degree [13, 17]. According to Arnold [13] and Gillings [17], accounts of Egyptian construction show only a 0.04 inch difference between the cubits of the Snefru and Khufu pyramids.

Lelgemann [18, 19] reports on the examination of almost 870 metrological rulers, the lengths of which represent 30 different units. He argues for the earliest unit, the Nippur cubit, at 518.5 mm. Lelgemann gives the ancient stadium = 600 feet and gives the stadium at Olympia as 192.27 metres, which he believes is based on the remen or ancient Egyptian trading cubit derived from the Egyptian royal cubit (523.75mm) and the ancient Trading cubit = 448.9 mm is derived.

Nichholson [20] in Men and Measures devoted a chapter to the story of Elle. His summary (page 30) gave comparative lengths of five cubits, as shown in Table 4.

Nichholson proposes a long history of the cubit predating the time of the Great Pyramid of Kufu c. 2600 BC He claims a measure of 500 ordinary cubits for the base side, which is only six inches different from the Flinders Petrie base measure. He puts the date of the royal cubit at around 4000 BC. BC. The great Assyrian cubit is dated c. 700 BC The Beládic ell is dated c. 300 BC Chr. Nichholson states that the Black Cubit was fully realized in about the ninth century of this era, suggesting a parallel with the growth and spread of Islam. While his measurements for these variants of the cubit agree with some of the other estimates in this paper, there are serious questions about the chronological order associated with these variants. Nichholson offers no evidence or support for this sequence. His estimates of the common and royal cubits agree with other estimates, but the other values ​​are less consistent.

4. Greek/Roman period

The Greek π χυς (pay′-kus) was a 24-digit cubit. The Cyrenaica cubit measured approximately 463.1mm, with the middle cubit measuring approximately 474.2mm, making them approximately 25/24 and 16/15 Roman cubits. Other Greek cubits based on different numeral measures from other Greek city-states were also used. The Greek 40-digit measure seems to correspond to the Latin gradus, step, or half a step [21].

It shows that the Greeks and Romans inherited the foot from the Egyptians. The Roman foot was divided into both 12 unciae (inches) and 16 digits. The uncia was a twelfth part of the Roman foot or pes measuring 11.6 inches. An uncia was 2.46 cm or 0.97 inches tall. The Cubitas corresponded to 24 digiti or 17.4 inches. The Romans also introduced their mile of 1000 paces, or double strides, with the pace being equal to five Roman feet. The Roman mile of 5000 feet was introduced in England during the occupation. Queen Elizabeth, who reigned from 1558 to 1603, changed the legal mile to 5280 feet or 8 furlongs, with a furlong being 40 rods of 5.5 yards each. The furlong continues today as a common unit in horse racing.

The introduction of the yard as a unit of length came later, but its origin is not clearly known. Some believe that the origin was the double cubit. Whatever its origin, the early yard was divided by the binary method into 2, 4, 8, and 16 parts, called the half yard, span, finger, and nail. The yard is sometimes associated with the “girdle” or circumference of a person’s waist, or the distance from the tip of the nose to the end of the thumb on Henry I’s body. Units were often “standardized” by reference to a. royal form.

The distance from the thumb to the extended finger to the elbow is a cubit, sometimes called the “natural cubit,” of about 1.5 feet. This standard appears to have been used in both the Roman system of measurement and various Greek systems. The Roman ulna, a four-foot-long cubit (about 120 cm), was common in the empire. This length is the measurement from a man’s waist to the fingers of the outstretched opposite arm. The Roman cubitus is a six-palm cubit of about 444.5 mm about 17.49 inches [17].

5. Other dimensions of the Middle East

Various cubits and variations of the cubit were recorded over time and in the geographical areas of the Middle East: 6 palms = 24 digits, i.e. ~45.0 cm or 18 inches (1.50 feet); 7 palms = 28 digits, that is ~ 52.5 cm or 21 inches (1.75 feet); 8 palms = 32 digits, i. H. ~60.0 cm or 24 in (2.00 ft); and 9 palms = 36 digits, i.e. ~67.5 cm or 27 inches (2.25 feet)[1]. Oates [22, page 186] writes of Mesopotamian archeology: “Measurements of length were based on the cubit or ‘elbow’ (very approximately 0.5 m).”

The Stories of Herodotus [23, p. 21] describe the walls surrounding the city of Babylon as “fifty royal cubits wide and two hundred high (the royal cubit is three inches longer than the common cubit)”. A note accompanying the text gives the information given in parentheses, and the end note gives these values ​​as “extraordinarily high,” raising questions as to the height of these walls, which would be well over three hundred feet if a royal cubit of twenty inches is implied, or 100 meters if the royal cubit is 50 cm long. For comparison, the great Cheops pyramid is originally given as 146.59 meters [24, page 895]. Herodotus’ credibility has often been questioned, and these dimensions may also be suspect or subject to the same exaggerations found elsewhere in his accounts.

In 1916, during the last years of the Ottoman Empire and during the First World War, the German Assyriologist Eckhard Unger found during excavations in Nippur from ca. He claimed it was a standard of measurement. This staff, irregularly shaped and irregularly marked, is said to be about 518.5 mm or 20.4 inches a Sumerian cubit. From the 2nd millennium BC A 30-digit cubit with a digit length of about 17.28 mm (just over 0.68 inch) has been identified around 400 BC. The Arabic Hashimi cubit of about 650.2 mm (25.6 in) measures two French feet. Since the established ratio between French and English feet is about 16 to 15, the ratios are as follows: 5 Hashimi cubits ≈ 10 French feet ≈ 128 English inches. The length of 256 Roman cubits and the length of 175 Hashimi cubits are also almost equivalent [16].

The Guard Elle (Arabic) measured about 555.6 mm; 5/4 of the Roman cubit result in 96 cubits ≈ 120 Roman cubits ≈ 175 English feet. The Arabic zero cubit (or black cubit) measured about 540.2 mm. Hence 28 Greek numerals of Cyrenaica cubit 25/24 of a Roman foot or 308.7 mm and 175 Roman cubits 144 black cubits. The Mesopotamian cubit measured about 533.4 mm, 6/5 Roman cubits, which corresponds to 20 Mesopotamian cubits ≈ 24 Roman cubits ≈ 35 English feet. The Babylonian cubit (or Lagash’s cubit) measured about 496.1 mm. There was a Babylonian trade cubit that was nine-tenths the normal cubit, or 446.5 mm. The Babylonian cubit is 15/16 of the royal cubit, making 160 Babylonian trade cubits ≈ 144 Babylonian cubits ≈ 135 Egyptian royal cubits. The Pergamon cubit 520.9 mm corresponded to 75/64 of the Roman cubit. The Salamis cubit 484.0 mm corresponded to 98/90 of the Roman cubit. The Persian cubit of about 500.1 mm corresponded to 9/8 of the Roman cubit and 9/10 of the quail. Further expansion of the geographic area yields even more names and values ​​for the cubit [16, 18, 19, 25, 26].

From the Encyclopedia Britannica [24] section on weights and measures in Volume 23, the unit specifications for the Middle Eastern cubit are given in Table 5.

Egypt Digit, Zebo 1/28 royal cubit 0.737′′ 18.7 mm palm, sheep 1/7 2.947′′ 75 mm royal foot 2/3 13.95′′ 254 mm royal cubit unit 20.62 524 Ater, Skhoine 12,000 royal cubits 3.9 miles 6.3 km Hebrew finger, Esba 1/24 cubit 0.74″ 19 mm palm, Tefah 4 fingers, 1/6 cubit 2.9″ 75 mm span, Zeret 3 palms, 1/ 2 cubits 8.8′′ 225 mm Royal cubits 7/6 Standard cubits 20.7 525 mm Tempo 2 cubits 35.4′′ 900 mm Stadium 360 cubits 528′′ 162 meters Greek palm 4 fingers 3.0′′ 77 mm wingspan 12 fingers 9.1” 231 ell 24 fingers 18.2′ 463 mm Stade 604 meters

From a table in A.E. Berriman’s Historical Metrology [8] we find his summary of cubit standards in Table 6.

yards inches meters Roman 17.48 0.444 Egyptian (short) 17.72 0.450 Greek 18.23 0.463 Assyrian 19.45 0.494 Sumerian 19.76 0.502 Egyptian (royal) 20.62 0.524 Talmudic 21.85 0.524 Palestinian 0.524

Assuming that the values ​​in Berriman’s table are reasonable estimates, the descriptive statistics from the data in Table 7 provide a summary of these different dimensions.

Inch Meter Mean 20.04 0.51 Median 19.61 0.50 Standard Deviation 2.57 0.07 Range 7.76 0.20 Minimum 17.48 0.44 Maximum 25.24 0.64

The estimates in Berriman’s table for Greek and Roman cubits agree fairly well with the Egyptian short cubit, suggesting an average of about 18 inches. This dimension is about two inches shorter than the overall mean in Table 7. The total range of values ​​is about eight inches from 17.5 to 25. The different origins for these dates and earlier values ​​suggest considering a family of cubits composed of many geographic areas have been aggregated many different times, rather than considering these differences as suspects of a precise dimension. Such variants may not be simple differences or differences around a precise entity, but rather a composite of dimensions accumulated over a large chronological period from many geographic locations that cannot be unraveled. These multiple dimensions suggest local applications and not just differences relative to a single standard, frustrating greater accuracy.

A rounded figure of 18″ seems common for this period. The Hellenistic cubit appears consistent with what has been identified as a short cubit. The standardization of the cubit began during Hellenism, coinciding with Alexander’s conquests in the Middle East. Its standardization was probably greatly increased under the Roman Empire through the influences of war, travel, and trade. These influences helped bring the cubit into a more standardized unit. Roman engineers in viaduct, bridge and road construction brought standardization throughout the empire.

Cubits were used from ancient times to the Middle Ages and are still used today in some parts of the East. In less industrialized countries, the use prevailed to measure textiles by the span of the arms with subdivisions of the hand and the cubit.

Moving on to Da Vinci (1452–1519) we have his specifications and comments on Vitruvius Pollio (1st century BC) for the human figure and its dimensions [1]. They can be summed up as fractions of a 6-foot man, as shown in Table 8.

Unit inch fingers 0.75 palm 3 feet 12 cubits 18 height 72 pace 72

Figure 1 shows the famous image associated with these dimensions. The given unit shows another example of the dimension of the cubit [1].

Leonardo da Vinci’s figure of Vitruvian Man shows nine historical units of measurement: the cubit, the span, the cubit, the Flemish cubit, the English cubit, the French cubit, the fathom, the hand and the foot. The units shown are shown with their historical ratios. In this figure, the cubit is 25% of the 6 foot individual and is approximately 18 inches long. We are reminded once again of the importance of the human figure in determining units of measurement.

Another example from this period comes from the autobiography [27] by Benvenuto Cellini (1500–1571). In describing his casting of Medusa, Cellini’s narrative uses ells to illustrate length as casually as we would use feet or yards. In this context at least, if not others, the yardstick seems to be in common use. How generalized one cubit dimension prevailed in this time period is not exactly known. By the time of the French Revolution, the Committee for Weights and Measures had abandoned the cubit in favor of the metric system, among other measurements.

6. The human cubit

The history of metrology provides interesting data on the different dimensions of the cubit. Metrology first used the human figure to determine dimensions. History to this point suggests that a value of around 17-18′′ is average and most common.

Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911) offers data from the investigations he conducted. Galton deserves credit as one of the first research anthropometrists. He was a scientist who produced some of the first weather maps to record changes in barometric pressure [28] and strategies to categorize fingerprints [29]. Galton is notable for his research, which involves thousands of subjects. Some research was carried out at the International Health Exhibition in London, held in 1884-85, and at other local sites. Galton had previously made an analysis of famous families from which he compiled Hereditary Genius [30] and later Natural Inheritance [31]. He had a lifelong interest in determining the physical and mental characteristics of groups of people.

Galton not only collected data from his laboratory on human subjects, he also explored statistical techniques for analyzing tables, graphs, and charts of data. In doing so, he created the origins of what is now recognized as correlation and regression analysis. The correlation was developed more formally by Pearson [32] as a product moment correlation coefficient. It has become the best-known and most-used statistical method of our time. Other statisticians, notably Sir Ronald Fisher [33–35] and Tukey [36], have criticized the correlation coefficient for its misuse due to simplistic applications and dubious interpretations. Nevertheless, the correlation coefficient remains a popular analysis technique. Pearson [37] also produced three volumes on the life, letters and works of Galton.

Galton’s dates for the cubit of his day are given in Table 9. They were taken from Stigler [38, page 319] The History of Statistics. Its original source is Galton [39], whose study provides data collected about 130 years ago on the forearm or ulna. Stigler [38, page 319] stated that three of Galton’s row totals were incorrectly summed. These totals have been corrected in Table 9.

Height in Inches Under 16.5 Under 17 Under 17.5 Under 18 Under 18.5 Under 19 Under 19.5 Over 19.5 71+ 0 0 0 1 3 4 15 7 30 70 0 0 0 1 5 13 11 0 30 69 0 1 1 2 25 15 6 0 50 68 0 1 3 7 14 7 4 2 38 67 0 1 7 15 28 8 2 0 61 66 0 1 7 18 15 6 0 0 47 65 0 4 10 12 8 2 0 0 36 64 0 5 11 2 3 0 0 0 21 −64 9 12 10 3 1 0 0 0 35 Total 9 25 49 61 102 55 38 9 348 inches 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 19.5 Frequency 9 25 49 61 102 55 38 9

Figure 2 summarizes the relative frequency of forearm/cubital lengths from Galton’s data on 348 subjects reported in Table 9.

Figure 2 shows that the modal category of forearm/cubit measurements for Galton’s sample was 18.5 inches. The frequency distribution of the forearm measurements is reasonably balanced. This is to be expected since these measures are randomly determined through inheritance. This was Galton’s point and emphasis. Consequently, his attention drawn from this and other data drew his interest in eugenics. Many other English scientists and statisticians shared this interest; Fisher, Pearson, Haldane, Cattell and others [40]. Galton (and the others) have been heavily criticized for this position. However, it was his work as a scientist and compiler of human data that led Galton to draw his conclusions. His statements [30, 31, 41] on eugenics do not sound like a political or personal agenda. One may disagree, but it is important to understand that Galton’s work focused on data and method as the basis for his conclusions.

The mean for the Galton sample of 348 people in Table 9 was nearly 18 inches, synchronizing estimates of a central location (i.e., mode, median, and mean) with an approximately normal distribution, as shown in Table 10.

Millimeters Inches Mean 67.06609 17.83621 Standard error 0.126798 0.042699 Median 67 18 Mode 67 18 Standard deviation 2.365384 0.796541 Sample variance 5.595043 0.634478 Kurtosis −0.9142 −0.42833 Skewness −0.09243 −0.16653 Range 8 3.5 Minimum 63 16 Maximum 71 19.5 Sum 23339 6207 Count 348 348

From Galton’s data summarized in Figure 2 and Tables 9 and 10, approximately 2% had forearms 16.5″ or less and 2% had forearms greater than 19.5″. Approximately 63%, or 218 people, and nearly two-thirds of the sample of 348 people are within half an inch + or – of the mean of 18.3 inches, or nearly 18.5 inches when rounded. About 95% vary by less than an inch above and below the mean estimate. Rounding off these frequencies makes these values ​​approximate, but they still provide a generally useful summary of his sample. Skewness and kurtosis appear as minimal influences on the distribution, further confirming a balanced distribution.

Figure 3 shows a three-dimensional view of Galton’s data. It usefully shows the grouping of values ​​along the center diagonal from top left to bottom right. Galton’s figures were not rendered in three dimensions, but he recorded the frequencies at each intersection of his two-way table, which were used to create this three-dimensional figure. Thinking about his data led to Galton’s work on association/correlation, for which the word regression has now evolved, derived from his efforts to interpret what these and other data express. See Stigler [38] for more details on Galton’s analytical methods. These matters are not directly related to the issues of cubit length and are therefore not discussed here. However, the cubit to stature ratio is useful and can be compared to Da Vinci’s estimate.

Stigler [38, page 319] pointed out that “Galton’s semigraphical ad hoc approach gave the correlation value”. This was Galton’s approach prior to Pearson’s product-moment correlation which, when calculated on his data, gave .

Figure 4 is a plot of data from Table 9 with a linear regression line showing the variation in forearm/ulna at each body size. It is very important to note the large variation in left cubit measurements (vertical) for each indication of stature (horizontal). Individual differences in the ulna/ulnar are clearly discernible at any point of stature, defeating anything more specific than a generalized indication of the forearm/ulnar from Galton’s data. The joint variance between stature and ulna is about 57%, suggesting that these two variables are related but not complete.

Several questions arise from Galton’s data on forearm length or cubit. (1) How representative is this sample of the general population? (2) How much change, if any, has occurred in the human dimensions since ancient times and over the hundred years from Galton’s sample to the present? (3) Are there gender differences or other sources of influence and bias?

From what we know of Galton’s methods, there is no evidence of outright bias. Stigler [38] raised no questions in Chapters 8, 9, and 10 of his book when describing Galton’s data and methods for data analysis. Galton’s rehearsals were large, often numbering in the thousands. This cubit sample has a moderate circumference. Galton was aware of gender differences and used 1.08 as a correction factor for male/female differences [38].

However, there is little information on the sample representation. It seems that Galton was generally fastidious in his investigations. He used gatherings of the general population to obtain his samples and take his measurements. Since right-handedness predominates, Galton measured the left hand to avoid what could result from possible environmental influences on the mostly dominant right hand. Volunteering could be a potential source of bias, but volunteering likely allowed for a larger sample of people. He paid individuals a modest amount to participate, similar to what is sometimes done today.

Johnson et al. [42] reviewed and reanalyzed Galton’s original data. They report mean scores, correlations of measures with age, correlations between measures, occupational differences in scores, and sibling correlations. A correlation of ulna/forearm to stature showed that the former accounted for about 25-27% of stature. Their work adds nothing to the knowledge of forearm/cubit measurements.

The recent relevance of forearm/cubit length arises from anthropometric dimensions used in industrial psychology and apparel industry applications. Data from Mech [43] provide more recent data on human dimensions, including the forearm. The forearm lengths reported for the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles are given in Table 11.

Percentile 5 50 95 Male 440 475 516 Female 400 430 460

These percentiles are from an unidentified UK sample aged 19-65. In the absence of further information, one can only compare and contrast these dimensions with previous samples discussed previously. These males had an average yardstick of 475 mm or ~18.7 inches. Females measured a slightly shorter median measurement of 430mm or ~16.9 inches. Mech [43] reported a median close to that given in Table 9 for Galton’s data, or ~18.7 to ~18.3.

Based on data from McCormick [45], the Lean Manufacturing Strategy specifies a forearm mean = 18.9′, standard deviation = 0.81′, minimum = 15.4′ and maximum = 22.1′. Nothing further is said about this sample and its properties.

There are numerous websites and organizations that carefully provide specific dimensions for the human body. However, these dimensions are developed to serve the apparel industry and furniture design and add nothing to the knowledge of the contemporary forearm/ulnar dimension [46].

The anthropometric database ANSUR [47], obtained from http://www.openlab.psu.edu/, gives a percentile table for the horizontal measurement that is “from the back of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger with the hand extended,” the means Elle. The sample consisted of unidentified male army recruits.

The ANSUR data example [47] in Table 12 provides descriptive statistics for the right male forearm plus outstretched hand in millimeters. The mean for this fairly large contemporary sample is about 2.5 cm larger than the short cubit reported much earlier. This also applies to the median, although the mode is slightly lower. The sample appears fairly balanced, but the variation indicated by the standard error, standard deviation, and range shows that this human dimension varies. There have already been discrepancies in the reporting of previous rehearsals.

(a) 1. 2.5. 5 10 25 50 75 90 95 97.5 99. 435 442 448 455 468 483 499 515 523 532 542 ) standard deviation 23.32 sample variance 544.09 kurtosis 0.43 skewness 0.22 range 192 minimum 386 maximum 578 count 1774

7. Discussion

The different dimensions for the historical yardstick of ancient times and places speak to a variation in the dimension itself. Two major units predominate; One estimate is around 18 inches and the other around 20 inches. There are other variations, some smaller and some much larger. There is too large a geographical area and too large a chronological period for any of these latter variations to be considered normative. Each variant was more locally relevant than widespread. It was not until the Greek and Roman empires that these values ​​merged into a certain standard through war, trade and construction.

How has the human body changed over time? Roche [48] reported that childhood growth rates have increased significantly over the past 50-100 years. He pointed to an increase in growth and maturation rates for all developed nations, but not evident in many other countries. An increase in length at birth was recorded in Italy and France, but little change in the United States. For 12-year-old children, an increase in height of around 1.5 cm/decade was reported. Growth in juvenile height was about 0.4 cm/decade in most industrialized countries. Changes in body proportions over the last few decades have been reported as less pronounced than those in height. Leg length increased more than height in men, but not in women. Roach also pointed out that dietary changes alone could not explain trends that transcend original socioeconomic differences. In the United States, Roach reported that there was a per capita increase in intake of protein and fat from animal sources, a decrease in carbohydrate and fat from plant sources, and some changes in caloric intake. It’s not clear that these changes represent better nutrition that stimulates growth. The trends may reflect environmental improvements, particularly changes in health practices and living conditions, leading to improvements in mortality rates and life expectancy [44]. Diet varies even in developed countries. Roche [48] reported that genetic factors play a small role in the emergence of trends. However, the data suggest significant differences between contemporary samples, as also noted in Galton’s data.

Overall, it seems unwise to be overly pretentious of the cubit’s contemporary value when such specimens are vaguely described. For any comparison of reported contemporary dimensions, there are few features by which to judge sample representation. The contemporary estimates appear to be fairly close and suggest that at least for these samples no major changes have occurred over the years, but we cannot be assured of a lack of valid data. Without further sample definition, any sophisticated analysis seems unjustified. The Galton values ​​were probably local and relevant to a British sample. Today, samples tend to reflect the role of immigration, with all the additional implications that this might have in determining national human dimensions. In general, Europeans are taller than Asian/Middle Eastern peoples and Americans are taller than Europeans. These are generalizations from rough estimates. Komlos and Baten [49] have made a comprehensive analysis of the stature over the centuries. The striking feature of their tables is the intra-variation of the values ​​for each period. Individual variation was also observed in Galton’s data. However, systematic sampling and sampling details must accompany all data before estimates can be anything more than broad generalizations.

A variety of circumstances are addressed by Elle, but most of them offer little specific information beyond what has already been presented. These biased websites usually serve an agenda, often religious or personal in nature. Overall, even these pages usually give the two main measurements for the yardstick at 18 inches or 20 inches.

The cubit remains useful as a measure. Wherever we travel, we take the cubit (hand and foot) with us. Knowing personal dimensions can sometimes prove useful in making quick, if rough, estimates. The 18 inch ruler is a very handy piece of equipment when measurements are required just above a foot ruler, particularly when straight lines need to be drawn just over 12 inches in length. Measuring tapes are a boon, but not for drawing lines.

It seems we could settle for 18 inches as a reasonably consistent measurement of the cubit. Although the foot evolved from a definite, albeit arbitrary, personality, any aggregation of them leads to an abstract dimension such that the cubit might justify a more common use than 0.5 yard and/or 0.5 meter. Further emphasis on one or both of these entities may prove more useful than first thought.

conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Old unit of length

The cubit is an ancient unit of length based on the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. It was mainly associated with the Sumerians, Egyptians and Israelites. The term cubit is found in the Bible in relation to Noah’s Ark, Ark of the Covenant, Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple. The common cubit was divided into 6 palms × 4 fingers = 24 digits.[1] Royal cubits added a palm for 7 palms × 4 fingers = 28 digits.[2] These lengths typically ranged from 44.4 to 52.92 centimeters (1.46 to 1.74 ft), with an ancient Roman cubit measuring up to 120 centimeters (3.9 ft).

In ancient times, in the Middle Ages and still in the early modern period, cubits of different lengths were used in many parts of the world. The term is still used in hedge planting, with the length of the forearm often being used to determine the distance between stakes placed in the hedge.

Etymology[ edit ]

The English word “cubit” comes from the Latin noun cubitum “elbow”, from the verb cubo, cubare, cubui, cubitum “to lay down”,[4] which is also where the adjective “recumbent” comes from.[5]

Ancient Egyptian royal cubit [ edit ]

The ancient Egyptian royal cubit (meh niswt) is the earliest attested standard measure. Elven staffs were used to measure length. Some of these staffs have survived: two are known from the tomb of Maya, treasurer of the 18th Dynasty pharaoh Tutankhamen, at Saqqara; another was found in the tomb of Kha (TT8) at Thebes. Fourteen such rods, including a double-celled rod, were described and compared by Lepsius in 1865.[6] These cubit rods are between 523.5 and 529.2 mm (20.61 and 20.83 in) long and divided into seven palms. Each palm is divided into four fingers, and the fingers are further divided.[7][6][8]

Hieroglyph of the royal cubit, meh niswt

Ellenstab from the Turin Museum

Early evidence of the use of this royal cubit comes from the Early Dynastic period: on the Palermo Stone, the high water level of the Nile during the reign of Pharaoh Djer is given as 6 cubits and 1 palm.[7] The use of the royal cubit is also known from Old Kingdom architecture, at least since the construction of the step pyramid of Djoser, around 2700 BC. BC was designed by Imhotep.

Ancient Mesopotamian units of measurement [ edit ]

Ancient Mesopotamian units of measurement have their origins in the loosely organized city-states of the early dynastic Sumerians. Each city, kingdom, and trade guild had its own standards until the founding of the Akkadian Empire when Sargon of Akkad issued a common standard. This standard was improved by Naram-Sin but fell into disuse after the dissolution of the Akkadian Empire. The standard of Naram-Sin was taken up again by the Nanše Hymn in the Ur III period, which reduced a plethora of multiple standards to a few agreed common groupings. Successors to the Sumerian civilization, including the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians, continued to use these groupings.

The classical Mesopotamian system formed the basis for the Elamite, Hebrew, Urartian, Hurrian, Hittite, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Arabic, and Islamic metrologies.

In 1916, in the final years of the Ottoman Empire and in the midst of World War I, German Assyriologist Eckhard Unger found an ingot of copper alloy while excavating at Nippur. The bar dates from c. 2650 BC Chr. and Unger claimed it was used as a measurement standard. This irregularly shaped and irregularly marked ruler supposedly defined the Sumerian cubit as approximately 518.6 mm (20.42 in).[11]

Biblical cubits[edit]

The standard of the cubit (Hebrew: אמה) in different countries and at different times varied. This realization prompted the rabbis of the second century AD to specify the length of their cubit, saying that the measure of cubit they spoke of “applies to the cubit of medium size.”[12] In this case, the requirement is to use 6 palm widths per cubit,[13][14] and which hand width is not to be confused with an outstretched palm but with a clenched palm and which hand width is the norm width of 4 finger widths (each finger width corresponds to the width of a thumb, about 2.25 cm).[15][16] This makes the hand width about 9 centimeters (3.5 inches) and 6 hand widths (1 cubit) 54 centimeters (21 inches). Epiphanius of Salamis, in his treatise On Weights and Measures, describes how it was customary in his day to take the biblical cubit measure: “The cubit is a measure, but it is taken from the measure of the forearm, the part from the elbow to the wrist and the palm of the hand is called the cubit, the middle finger of the cubit being also lengthened at the same time, and the span, that is, of the hand, added underneath, all taken together.”[17]

Rabbi Avraham Chaim Naeh put the linear measurement of a cubit at 48 centimeters (19 inches).[18] Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz (the “Chazon Ish”) contradictingly put the length of a cubit at 57.6 centimeters (22.7 inches).[19]

Rabbi and philosopher Maimonides, according to the Talmud, distinguishes between the cubit of 6 handbreadths, used in ordinary measurements, and the cubit of 5 handbreadths, used in measuring the Golden Altar, the base of the altar of burnt offering, its circle and the horns of the altar .[12]

Ancient Greece[edit]

In ancient Greek units of measurement, the standard forearm cubit (Greek: πῆχυς, translit. pēkhys) measured approximately 0.46 m (18 inches). The short forearm cubit (πυγμή pygmē, lit. “fist”), from wrist to elbow, measured approximately 0.34 m (13 in).

Ancient Rome[ edit ]

In ancient Rome, according to Vitruvius, a cubit equaled 1+1⁄2 Roman feet or 6 palm widths (roughly 444 mm or 17.5 inches).[21] A 120 centimeter cubit (roughly four feet long), called the Roman ulna, was common in the Roman Empire, this cubit being measured by the fingers of the outstretched arm opposite the man’s hip.[22]; also, [23]with[24]

Islamic world[edit]

In the Islamic world, the cubit (dhirāʿ) had a similar origin and was originally defined as the arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger.[25] In the medieval Islamic world, several different cubit lengths were in use for the unit of length, ranging from 48.25 centimeters (19.00 inches) to 145.6 centimeters (57.3 inches), and the dhiraʿ, in turn, was commonly measured in six handbreadths (qabḍa ) divided. and every handbreadth into four fingerbreadths (aṣbaʿ).[25] The most commonly used definitions were:

the legal cubit (al-dhirāʿ al-sharʿiyya), also known as the hand cubit (al-dhirāʿ al-yad), the cubit of Yusuf (al-dhirāʿ al-Yūsufiyya, named after the qāḍī al-dhirāʿ al-aus the 8th barīd al-dhirāʿ al-mursala) and thread cubits (al-dhirāʿ al-ghazl). It measured 49.8 centimeters (19.6 in), although in the Abbasid Caliphate it measured 48.25 centimeters (19.00 in), possibly as a result of reforms by Caliph al-Ma’mun (r. 813–833). [25]

( ), also known as hand cubit ( ), Yusuf cubit ( , named after the 8th century ), and thread cubit ( ). It measured 49.8 centimeters (19.6 in), although in the Abbasid Caliphate it measured 48.25 centimeters (19.00 in), possibly as a result of reforms by Caliph al-Ma’mun ( ). the black cubit (al-dhirāʿ al-sawdāʾ), adopted in the Abbasid period and fixed at 54.04 centimeters (21.28 in) by the measure used in the nilometer on the island of Rawda. It is also known as common cubit (al-dhirāʿ al-ʿāmma), burlap cubit (al-dhirāʿ al-kirbās), and was most commonly used in the Maghreb and Islamic Spain under the name al-dhirāʿ al-. Rashshashiyya. [25]

( ), adopted in the Abbasid period and fixed at 54.04 centimeters (21.28 in) by the measure used in the nilometer on the island of Ravda. It is also known as the common cubit ( ), sackcloth cubit ( ) and was most commonly used by the name in the Maghreb and Islamic Spain. the king’s cubit ( al-dhirāʿ al-malik Sassanid Persians. It measured eight qabḍa for a total of 66.5 centimeters (26.2 in) on average. It was this measurement used by Ziyad ibn Abihi for his survey of Iraq and hence is also known as ziyadi cubit (al-dhirāʿ al-Ziyādiyya) or surveying cubit (al-dhirāʿ al-misāḥaʾ), by Caliph al-Mansur ( r. 754–775) also as Hashemite cubit ( al-dhirāʿ al-Hāshimiyya ) Other identical measurements were the working cubit ( al-dhirāʿ al-ʿamal ) and probably also the al-dhirāʿ al-hindāsa , which measures 65.6 centimeters.[25]

( Sassanid-Persian. It measured eight for a total of 66.5 centimeters (26.2 in) on average. It was this measure used by Ziyad ibn Abihi for his survey of Iraq and is therefore also known as ziyadi cubit ( ) or surveying cubit ( ). It was also known as the Hashemite cubit ( ) by Caliph al-Mansur ( ) Other identical measurements were the working cubit ( ) and probably also the 65.6 centimeters (25.8 in) large cloth cubit, which varied greatly by region: the Egyptian cubit (al-dhirāʿ al-bazz or al-dhirāʿ al-baladiyya) measured 58.15 centimeters (22.89 in), that of Damascus 63 centimeters (25 in ), Aleppo 67.7 centimeters (26.7 in), Baghdad 82.9 centimeters (32.6 in), and Istanbul 68.6 centimeters (27.0 in).[25]

A variety of more local or specific cubit measurements were developed over time: the “minor” Hashemite cubit of 60.05 centimeters (23.64 in), also known as the cubit of Bilal (al-dhirāʿ al-Bilāliyya, named after the Basran from the 8th century). qāḍī Bilal ibn Abi Burda); the Egyptian carpenter’s cubit (al-dhirāʿ bi’l-najjāri) or the architect’s cubit (al-dhirāʿ al-miʿmāriyya) from c. 77.5 centimeters (30.5 in), reduced to 75 centimeters (30 in) and standardized in the 19th century; the house cubit (al-dhirāʿ al-dār) of 50.3 centimeters (19.8 in), introduced by the Abbasid era qāḍī Ibn Abi Layla; the cubit of Umar (al-dhirāʿ al-ʿUmariyya) of 72.8 centimeters (28.7 in) and its double, the scale cubit (al-dhirāʿ al -mīzāniyya).[25 ]

In medieval and early modern Persia, the cubit (usually known as the gaz) was either the legal cubit of 49.8 centimeters (19.6 in) or the Isfahan cubit of 79.8 centimeters (31.4 in). A royal cubit (gaz-i shāhī) appeared in the 17th century at 95 centimeters (37 in), while a “shortened” cubit (gaz-i mukassar) of 6.8 centimeters (2.7 in) (probably derived from the widespread fabric-Elle). of Aleppo) was used for fabrics.[25] The measure survived into the 20th century, with 1 gaz equaling 104 centimeters (41 in). Mughal India also had its own royal cubit (dhirāʿ-i pādishāhī) of 81.3 centimeters (32.0 in).[25]

The 18th-century physician and antiquary William Stukeley suggested that a unit he called the “Druid’s Cubit” had been used by the builders of megalithic monuments such as Stonehenge and Avebury. Stukeley’s cubit was 530 mm (20.8 inches) long, a measurement he wished to recognize as multiples in the dimensions of ancient buildings. [26]

Other systems[edit]

Other measurements based on forearm length include some lengths of Ell, Chinese Chi, Japanese Shaku, Indian Hasta, Thai Sok, Malay Hasta, Tamil Muzham, Telugu Moora (మూర), Khmer -hat, and Tibetan khru (ཁྲུ).[27]

Elbow in heraldry[edit]

Elbow-armed, dexterous, clothed and erect A heraldicand

A cubit in heraldry can be skillful or sinister. It can be clothed (with one sleeve) and can be shown in a variety of positions, most commonly upright but also fesswise (horizontal), bent (diagonally) and is often shown grasping objects. It is most commonly used upright as a coat of arms, for example by the Poyntz of Iron Acton, Rolle of Stevenstone and Turton families.

See also[edit]

References[ edit ]

Bibliography[edit]

Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 1392: bad argument #1 for “pairs” (expected table, got null).

Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 1392: bad argument #1 for “pairs” (expected table, got null). .

. Petrie, Sir Flinders (1881). Pyramids and Temples of Giza.

. Stone, Mark H., The Cubit: A History and Measurement Commentary, Journal of Anthropology doi:10.1155/2014/489757, 2014

First man and prophet in Islam

Adam (Arabic: آدم, romanized: ʾĀdam) is said to have been the first human on earth and the first prophet (Arabic: نبي, nabī) of Islam.[1] Adam’s role as the father of mankind is held in awe by Muslims. Muslims also refer to his wife Hawā (Arabic: حواء, Eva) as “the mother of mankind”.[2] Muslims consider Adam to be the first Muslim since the Qur’an states that all prophets preached the same faith of Islam (Arabic: إسلام‎, submission to God).[3]

An overview of the creation[ edit ]

Adam honored by angels – Persian miniature (c.1560)

The Qur’an and Hadith give the same account of the creation of Adam. Synthesizing the Qur’an with Sunni Hadith can lead to the following report. According to the Qur’an, when God told the angels that He would put a successor on earth, they wondered if man would cause bloodshed and harm, but He told them that He knew what they did not know.[4] He created Adam from mud or clay and breathed life into him. Hadith adds that he was called Adam after the clay of which he was made, or the skin (adim) of the earth.

According to the Qur’an, God commands the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam, upon which all of them obeyed except Iblis who claimed, “I am better than him. You created me from fire while you created him from mud.”[5]

Traditionally, Sunni scholars say that while Adam was sleeping, God took a rib from him and created Eve from it. However, this also counts as “from the Israelites”. While the creation of Adam and Eve is mentioned in the Qur’an, the exact method of creation is not specified.[6] The Qur’an then says that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from a tree in the garden, but Satan was able to persuade them to taste it. Then they began to cover themselves, knowing now that they were naked.[7] For this, God banished Adam and Eve to earth; Non-canonical Sunni hadith say that fruits turned into thorns and pregnancy became dangerous. Non-canonical Sunni hadith also say that Adam and Eve were thrown far apart so they had to seek each other out and eventually met at Mount Arafat.[6]

In Islamic theology, it is not believed that Adam’s sin is borne by all of his children.[8] Hadith saying that when he was on earth, God taught him how to plant seeds and bake bread. This was to be the way of all the children of Adam.[9] Adam lived about 1000 years, although this has been a topic of debate.[9]

Commenting on whether Adam was first or Eve, Islamic scholar Sayyid Mumtaz Ali says: “The fact that Adam was created first is nothing but childish. First of all, we are tempted to say that this is because it was unacceptable to God that a woman should be left without a partner for even a second. Therefore, He first created Adam for their sake. But actually the belief that Adam was created first and then Eve came is part of the Christian and Jewish belief. This is not part of the Islamic faith at all. There is no mention in the Qur’an of who was created first, Adam or Eve.”[10]

Meaning of Adam[ edit ]

According to disputed hadiths, mankind learned everything from Adam. He was the first to learn to plant, harvest, and bake, and he was the first to be taught penance and proper burial.[6] It is also said by some scholars that God also revealed to Adam the various dietary restrictions and the alphabet.[9] He was made the first prophet and is said to have been taught 21 scrolls and able to write them himself.[9]

Adam was also created from earth. It is known that the earth produces crops, nourishes animals, and provides shelter, among other things. The earth is very important to humanity, so its creation makes it very diverse.[7] According to some hadiths, the different races of people are even due to the different colors of soil used in the creation of Adam. The soil also contributed to the idea that there are good people, bad people and everything in between in the world.[11] Adam is an important figure in many other religions besides Islam, especially the Abrahamic religions.[12] The story of Adam varies slightly between religions but manages to maintain a general theme and structure.[12]

The story of angels prostrating to Adam led to various debates as to whether humans or angels were superior. Angels bowing to Adam are mentioned as evidence of man’s superiority over angels. Others hold that prostration did not imply such a thing, but was merely a command or test for the angels.[13] A position found particularly among Mu’tazilites and some Asharites holds that angels are superior due to their lack of urges and desires.[14] Maturidism generally does not believe that any of these creatures is superior to the other and that the obedience of angels and prophets derives from their virtues and insight into God’s dealings, not from their pristine purity.[15]

In the Qur’anic version of Adam’s fall, Satan enticed them with promises of becoming immortal angels. Al-Qushayri comments 7:20 that Adam desired an angelic state without passion, avoiding the fate of death.[16]

Descendants of Adam[ edit ]

Although it is debatable, it has been said that Eve went through 120 pregnancies with Adam, each of which consisted of a pair of twins: a boy and a girl.[9] In some other traditions, their first child was a single-born girl named ʿAnāq.[17] According to several sources, God took all of Adam’s seed off his back while they were still in heaven. He asked each of them, “Am I not your Lord?” as read in verse 7:172 and all answered yes.[9] For this reason it is believed that all human beings are born with an innate knowledge of God. The most famous children of Adam are Cain and Abel. Both brothers were asked to offer individual sacrifices to God. God accepted Abel’s sacrifice because of Abel’s righteousness, and Cain, out of jealousy, threw a stone at Abel, leading to the first murder in human history: Cain’s murder of Abel.[9] When Adam grieved his son, he preached to his other children about God and faith in him.[11] As Adam’s death approached, he appointed his son Seth as his successor.[11]

Adam in the Quran[edit]

The story of Adam and creation runs throughout the Qur’an. There are references in chapters: 2, 4, 5, 20, 21, 38 and others. In the Qur’anic narrative, God created mankind from clay (Q3:59),[18] molded them into a form, and then commanded the angels to bow down (submit) to Adam. Iblis refused out of pride (Q15:26-32)[19] and was banished from Jannah (paradise).

According to the Qur’an, God had already decided before creating Adam that mankind (Adam and his descendants) would be put on earth. Islam ascribes mankind’s life on earth not as a punishment but as part of God’s plan.

“‘Truly I will put mankind upon the earth, generation after generation.’ They (the angels) said: ‘Will you put in them those who wreak havoc in it and shed blood, while we (the angels) give you praise and thanksgiving and sanctify you?’ God said, ‘I know what you don’t know.’”

God then teaches Adam the names of all things and gathers the angels before Adam to show them that Adam has more than they know, particularly Adam’s high intellectual capacity:

“And he taught Adam the names – all of them. Then he showed them to the angels and said: “Tell me the names of these, if you are truthful.” They said: “Glory to you (said the angels), we have no knowledge except what you have taught us: In truth it is You who are perfect in knowledge and wisdom.” He said, “O Adam! Tell them their names.” When He had told them, God said (to the angels): “Did I not tell you that I know the mysteries of heaven and earth, and I know what you reveal and what you hide? ”

God commands the angels to bow down to Adam. All obey except Iblis who feels made of fire should not bow to Adam who was made of earth. His disobedience to God’s command, followed by his pride, caused him to fall into God’s favor:

“And behold, We said to the angels: ‘Bow down to Adam,’ and they bow down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: he was of those who reject the faith (those who disobey).” (2:34)

Later, God places Adam and Eve in the garden and tells them that they are free to enjoy its fruit, except not to approach a certain tree: (2:35)

“We said, ‘O Adam! live you and your wife in the garden; and eat of the bounty in it as (where and when) you will; but do not approach that tree, lest you run into mischief and transgression.”

Satan then tempts Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree: (2:36)

“Then Satan let them slip out of (the garden) and brought them out of the state (of bliss) in which they had been towards others. On earth will be your dwelling place and your livelihood—for a time.”

Adam and Eve feel great remorse for their actions, but God turns to Adam in mercy and comforts him: (2:37)

“Then Adam learned inspirational words from his Lord, and his Lord turned to him;

God then informs Adam that God will send His guidance to Adam and his descendants: (2:38)

“We said, ‘Everyone come down from this place (the Garden), for whenever guidance comes to you from Me and whoever follows My guidance, there will be no fear upon them, nor will they be sad.’

In the Garden of Eden, Satan (often identified as Iblis) lures Adam and Eve into disobeying God by tasting the fruit of the forbidden tree. God, send Adam and Eve out to the rest of the earth.[20][21]

The Koran also describes the two sons of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel.[22][23]

Adam in hadith[ edit ]

A hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari narrated by Abu Hurairah states that Adam was created 60 cubits (about 30 meters) tall and that the people of Paradise will look like Adam. Human height has since decreased.[24]

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Allah created Adam sixty cubits (about 30 meters) high. When He created him, He said (to him), “Go and greet that company of angels that are sitting there, and hear what they want to say to you in reply, for that will be your greeting and the greeting of your posterity.” Adam (went and) said: ‘As-Salamu alaikum (peace be upon you).’ They replied: ‘As Salamu-‘Alaika wa Rahmatullah (peace and mercy of Allah be upon you). So they ‘Wa Rahmatullah’ increased the creation of Adams (offspring) (i.e. the stature of people is continuously decreasing) up to the present time.”

See also[edit]

Notes [edit]

Life-size Noah’s Ark opens amid a tide of skepticism

Enlarge Image Toggle Caption Ashley Westerman/NPR Ashley Westerman/NPR

Built in the rolling hills of northern Kentucky, a replica of Noah’s Ark is literally of biblical proportions. The wooden structure is seven stories high and 1 1/2 soccer fields long.

“The Bible states that the original ark was 300 cubits long, using the Hebrew royal cubit, which by today’s calculations is 510 feet,” says Mark Looey, co-founder of Answers in Genesis, the Christian ministry that runs the attraction has built. It is the same group that opened the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky in 2007, which promotes a literal interpretation of the Bible and other teachings: that planet Earth is only 6,000 years old and man lived side by side with dinosaurs.

The Ark attraction has been mired in controversy for years, and while Answers in Genesis promises jobs and more tourism in a region in dire need of an economic boost, it’s been a pretty mixed blessing for many who live there.

‘After the Flash and Bang’

The Ark offers three decks of exhibits so sophisticated you might think you’ve stepped into Disney World.

However, there are no live animals on the ark. “There’s a zoo for them back there,” says Looey. Instead, the ark will be filled with lifelike animal models — including dinosaurs and a pair of unicorns — designed by many of the people who also made exhibits for the Creation Museum.

The ark doesn’t float either. Ken Ham, President and CEO of Answers in Genesis and Ark Encounter, says it wasn’t built to swim. “We built it as a reminder, a reminder of God’s Word and the account of Noah and the Flood,” he says.

Religion Noah’s Ark in Kentucky meets controversy Noah’s Ark in Kentucky meets controversy Listen · 3:21 3:21

It cost $100 million to build and is expected to attract up to 2 million visitors a year and millions in tourism revenue, according to an independent study by the ministry. Looey says they have already hired over 300 people and hundreds more jobs are on the way when the other phases – including a walled city and a replica Tower of Babel – are complete.

Many in Williamstown, Kentucky, the small town just across Interstate 75 from the attraction, are waiting with bated breath for the grand opening. The town — the rural seat of Grant County, Kentucky — has a population of about 4,000. It’s a mid-range sleeper community right between Cincinnati and Lexington, Kentucky.

Williamstown Mayor Rick Skinner, an avid supporter of the attraction, says the city has already upgraded its electricity supply and built a new water treatment plant. The city center is also getting a facelift. Many new stores have opened on Main Street, while others are undergoing renovations. Before news of the Ark encounter hit town, the old brick buildings that lined Main Street were mostly empty.

Enlarge Image Toggle Caption Ashley Westerman/NPR Ashley Westerman/NPR

Local attorney Bill Adkins says when the recession hit Williamstown, it hit it hard. He remembers sitting in foreclosure settlements almost every week.

According to the study cited by Answers in Genesis, the Ark’s economic impact will be approximately $4 billion over the next decade. But Adkins is skeptical.

“We haven’t seen the hotels, we haven’t seen the restaurants that come in to support this attraction,” he says. “I think a lot of people are waiting to invest because they want to see if after the bang and bang of the opening, what happens next.”

Answers in Genesis point to the success of the Creation Museum as evidence of the Ark’s potential. The ministry says the museum has 300,000 visitors a year and that its generated revenue has exceeded expectations, although they would not give figures.

Then there are controversies surrounding the project, provoking a debate about the separation of church and state. The state withdrew tax incentives it had given Answers in Genesis, in part because the department refused to promise it would not discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring. The state said the project has evolved from a tourist attraction into an extension of the ministry.

The tax breaks were later reinstated after Answers in Genesis sued in federal court and won.

Adkins is uneasy about up to $18 million worth of tax breaks the department is getting from the state. Answers in Genesis is considered a tax-exempt church, and critics of the Ark project have said tax breaks amount to “double dipping.”

Enlarge Image Toggle Caption Ashley Westerman/NPR Ashley Westerman/NPR

He also just doesn’t like the fact that applicants have to adhere to the ministry’s rigid moral standards and beliefs.

“The fact that you have to submit to your own convictions in order to correspond to those of an employer,” he says, “that strikes me as very intrusive and very depressing.

A federal judge ruled earlier this year that Answers in Genesis, as a religious group, has the right to restrict its hiring.

Resident Jay Novarra is upset with local leaders. In addition to providing free land for the project, Williamstown Answers also gave $62 million in bonds to Genesis. The ministry says the city won’t be on the hook for these.

As a farmer, Novarra is concerned about rising water prices as the city also supplies water to the Ark.

“We have a lot of people who farm for a living, and you start increasing the price we have to pay to grow our food, then you definitely affect farmers,” she says. “And I have to ask myself: What’s in it for the farmer?”

Mayor Skinner says there is no contingency plan. They put all their eggs in one basket – similar to Noah.

Current examples on the web

Newton was interested in the cubit, a unit of measurement used by the builders of the Great Pyramid. — Livia Gershon, Smithsonian Magazine, December 8, 2020

The longhouse, with its cubits and crystal shields, was not what protected us from the pandemic. — Ruth Ozeki, New York Times, November 10, 2020

In the world of Newton and Taylor, a sacred cubit consisted of exactly 25 ancient inches, each of which was 1.001 imperial inches. — Jimmy Maher, Ars Technica, March 15, 2020

And which of you, being afraid, can add a cubit to the measure of your life? – Bob Odenkirk, The New Yorker, Oct. 28, 2019

The palace that Maya built was of golden columns and occupied an area of ​​five thousand cubits. – Girish Shahane, Quartz India, August 30, 2019

These towers are said to be 60 cubits (90 feet) high and covered with skins treated with vinegar, mud, and refractory substances. —William Gurstelle, Popular Mechanics, April 11, 2019

The English, at least since the Middle Ages, have been hewn to their own standards – cubits, stones, miles, acres – some of which are still in use in America. – Jenny Gross, WSJ, Oct. 23, 2017

Cubit cut his trench through a natural dam formed by the accumulation of sediment on the banks of the river. – Tristan Baurick, NOLA.com, August 25, 2017

See more

Goliath, the giant felled by King David in the Hebrew Bible, is described as staggering in size.

But that number may not have been a true physical measure, but rather a metaphor, coming from the width of his hometown’s city walls, new research suggests. This does not reveal whether other aspects of the story are true – for example, whether Goliath was a giant or whether his unequal fight took place with David.

“We’re not trying to make a statement about the accuracy of the story,” said Jeffrey Chadwick, Jerusalem Center professor of archeology and Middle Eastern studies at Brigham Young University, in a paper he presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). ) virtual annual meeting on November 19th. “The problem is the metric,” he said, “where does it come from, where could it have been obtained?”

Related: Biblical Battles: 12 Ancient Wars from the Bible

Old Metrics

The lower northern city wall in the ancient city of Gath was about 2.38 meters wide. This is equivalent to four cubits and a span—the same height that Goliath, according to some biblical texts, once was. (Image credit: Aren Maeir, 2019)

(opens in new tab)

Some ancient texts say that Goliath stood at “four cubits and a span” – which, according to Chadwick, is about 7.80 feet (2.38 meters) – while other ancient texts claim that he was “six cubits and a span” tall – a measurement equivalent to about 11.35 feet (3.46 m). That would certainly have been an impressive height, as the tallest recorded person of modern times was Robert Wadlow, who stood at an impressive 2.72 m (8 ft 11 in) according to Guinness World Records.

But how much these “cubits” and “spans” are in modern measurements is a source of debate among scholars. These measurements likely varied throughout the ancient world. Chadwick has studied ancient architectural sites throughout ancient Israel, measuring the remains of numerous structures and noting measurements that appear to be commonly used. His research shows that a “cubit” in the region was 1.77 feet (54 centimeters) and a wingspan was 0.72 feet (22 cm). He prepares his metrical research for publication.

Hometown measurement

The site of Gath (also known as Tell es-Safi) can be seen from afar here. According to the Hebrew Bible, it was the hometown of Goliath. (Image credit: Jeff Chadwick)

(opens in new tab)

Chadwick is part of a team excavating Gath (aka Tell es-Safi), a Philistine city where, according to the Hebrew Bible, Goliath grew up.

Related: 7 Biblical Artifacts That Will Likely Never Be Found

Recently, the team excavated a fortification wall found in the northern part of the lower city. The wall was built in the 10th century BC. It was built around 1000 B.C., a time “when the Philistines controlled the city since it served as their capital,” Chadwick told Live Science. “The stone wall foundations were exactly eight feet wide at any point along the 130 feet of their line uncovered by our excavation—four cubits and a span,” Chadwick said. He determined that the wall was possibly 7 m high.

In his ASOR presentation, Chadwick suggested that biblical writers may have obtained Goliath’s height from the breadth of Gath’s northern lower city wall. He noted that Goliath is the only person whose exact height is recorded in the Bible. “No one else’s height is recorded as an actual metric,” Chadwick said.

Given that the Bible authors probably did not have access to Goliath’s body, the question remains as to how the Biblical authors got Goliath’s size of “four cubits and a span.”

It is possible, then, that the authors “metaphorically described the Champion [Goliath] as comparable to the size and strength of the walled city of the Philistine capital – a metric that would have survived for many centuries and by those familiar with Gath.” , would have been known,” Chadwick said.

Live Science contacted several experts unaffiliated with the research for their opinions on Chadwick’s theory. At the time of publication, no one was able to reply. The excavations at Gath are being led by Aren Maeir, a professor of archeology at Bar Ilan University in Israel.

Originally published on Live Science.

For centuries, the most common image of Jesus Christ, at least in Western cultures, has been that of a bearded, fair-skinned male with long, wavy, light brown or blond hair and (often) blue eyes. But the Bible does not describe Jesus physically, and all the evidence we have suggests that he probably looked very different from how he was long portrayed.

What Does the Bible Say?

The Bible offers few references to the physical appearance of Christ. Most of what we know about Jesus comes from the first four books of the New Testament, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. According to the Gospels, Jesus was a Jewish man, born in Bethlehem in the first century AD and raised in the city of Nazareth in Galilee (formerly Palestine, now northern Israel).

We know that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry (Luke 3:23), but the Bible tells us practically nothing about what he looked like—except that he didn’t stand out in any special way. When Jesus was arrested before he was crucified in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:47-56), Judas Iscariot had to point his soldiers among the disciples to Jesus—presumably because they all seemed alike.

WATCH: Jesus: His Life in the HISTORY Vault

Godong/UIG via Getty Images

For many scholars, Revelation 1:14-15 provides an indication that Jesus’ skin was a darker shade and that his hair was woolly. The hair on his head, it is said, “was white as white wool, white as snow.

“We don’t know what [Jesus] looked like, but if everything we know about him is true, he was a Palestinian Jew living in the Galilee in the first century,” says Robert Cargill, assistant professor of classics and religious studies at the University of Iowa and editor of the Biblical Archeology Review. “So he would have looked like a first-century Palestinian Jew. He would have looked like a Jewish Galilean.”

READ MORE: Who Wrote the Bible?

How have depictions of Jesus changed over the centuries?

Some of the earliest known artistic depictions of Jesus date from the mid-third century AD, more than two centuries after his death. These are the paintings in the ancient catacombs of St. Domitilla in Rome, first discovered around 400 years ago. The paintings reflect one of the most common images of Jesus of the time and show Jesus as the Good Shepherd, a young, short-haired, beardless man with a lamb around his shoulders.

The restored fresco shows Jesus and his apostles in the Roman catacomb of Santa Domitilla. Andreas Solaro/AFP/Getty Images

Another rare early portrait of Jesus was discovered in 2018 on the walls of a ruined church in southern Israel. Painted in the sixth century AD, it is the earliest known image of Christ found in Israel, and shows him with shorter, curly hair, a depiction that was common in the eastern region of the Byzantine Empire – particularly Egypt and Syria-Palestine region – but disappeared from later Byzantine art.

READ MORE: Does this 1,500-year-old painting show what Jesus looked like?

The long-haired, bearded image of Jesus, which emerged from the 4th century AD, was heavily influenced by depictions of Greek and Roman gods, particularly the almighty Greek god Zeus. At this point, Jesus began to appear in a long robe, seated on a throne (as in the 5th-century mosaic on the altar of the church of Santa Pudenziana in Rome), sometimes with a halo around his head.

“The purpose of these images was never to show Jesus as a man, but to provide theological clues as to who Jesus was as Christ (King, Judge) and Divine Son,” Joan Taylor, Professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King’s College London , wrote in The Irish Times. “They have evolved over time into the standard ‘Jesus’ that we recognize.”

Of course, not all images of Jesus correspond to the dominant image of him portrayed in Western art. In fact, many different cultures around the world have depicted him as one of their own, at least visually. “Cultures tend to portray prominent religious figures as looking like the dominant racial identity,” Cargill explains.

READ MORE: The Bible says Jesus was real. What other evidence is there?

What is the Shroud of Turin?

Of the many possible relics that have surfaced in association with Jesus over the centuries, one of the best known is the Shroud of Turin, which surfaced in 1354. Believers argued that after his crucifixion, Jesus was wrapped in the piece of linen that the shroud bears the clear image of his face. But many experts have dismissed the shroud as a fake, and the Vatican itself describes it as an “icon” rather than a relic.

A negative image of the Shroud of Turin. Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

“The Shroud of Turin has been exposed as a medieval forgery a couple of times,” says Cargill. “It is part of a larger phenomenon that has existed since Jesus himself, namely, trying to acquire objects and, when they cannot be acquired, making objects that are part of Jesus’ body, life and ministry – for both purposes his existence and to legitimize the claims made about him or, in some cases, to harness his miraculous powers.”

READ MORE: Shroud of Turin is not Jesus’ shroud, claims Forensic Study

What research and science can tell us about Jesus

In 2001, retired medical artist Richard Neave led a team of Israeli and British forensic anthropologists and computer programmers to create a new image of Jesus based on a first-century AD Israeli skull, using computer modeling and their knowledge of what Jewish people are based looked back then. Although no one claims that it is an exact reconstruction of what Jesus himself actually looked like, scholars consider this image—about 5 feet tall, with darker skin, dark eyes, and shorter, curly hair—to be more accurate than many artistic depictions of the Son From God.

In her 2018 book What Did Jesus Look Like?, Taylor used archaeological remains, historical texts, and ancient Egyptian funerary art to conclude that Jesus, like most people in Judea and Egypt at the time, was most likely brown eyes and dark brown to black hair and olive skin. He may have stood about 5 feet 5 inches. (166 cm) tall, the average height of men at the time.

While Cargill agrees that these more recent images of Jesus — including darker, perhaps curly hair, darker skin, and dark eyes — are probably closer to the truth, he emphasizes that we can never really know for sure what Jesus looked like.

“What did the Jewish Galileans look like 2,000 years ago?” he asks. “That’s the question. You probably didn’t have blue eyes or blonde hair.”

access denied

Your access to the NCBI website at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov has been suspended due to possible misuse/abuse of your website. This is not an indication of a security issue such as a virus or attack. It could be something as simple as a script running away or learning how to make better use of e-utilities http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25497/ to work more efficiently so that your work this does not affect the ability of other researchers to also use our website. To restore access and understand how you can better interact with our site to avoid this in the future, ask your system administrator to contact [email protected].

How big should Noah’s ark have been? Wouldn’t it be possible to fit two specimens of each type on a huge cruise ship like the Oasis of the Seas?

how to measure size Attempting to draw any comparisons to a mythical Noah’s Ark is virtually impossible. Not only is the required cubic capacity unquantifiable, but the logistics of keeping each of the creature pairs alive and well seems to have been sidelined in the equation.

It would have been impossible to create a habitat compatible with each creature’s original home. for example, bamboo plantations for the pandas, eucalyptus groves for the koala bears, ice floes for the penguins and polar bears, pools for the freshwater creatures that are at risk of flooding, and the filter and pump systems needed to maintain hygiene standards. Isolation would have been vital if all more aggressive creatures hadn’t suddenly been endowed with docility.

The herbivores would have needed a huge storage area for their dried grasses; The carnivores, if not adjusted as above, would have wreaked havoc on their neighbors and thus required a supply of fresh meat from an unspecified source.

All in all, it’s best to keep the story in its mythical cocoon cloaked in blind religious belief.

Jack Hill, St Albans, Herts

The dimensions of Noah’s ark in Genesis chapter 6 are given in cubits (about 18-22 inches): length 300 cubits, width 50 cubits, and height 30 cubits. Taking the lower cubit, this gives dimensions in feet of 450 x 75 x 45, which compares to 850 x 92 x 64 for the Titanic. The ark was built in six months by 600-year-old Noah and his three sons. Whether he employed other labor (to be drowned) and how he obtained the necessary supplies of gopher wood and pitch is not recorded. But there would have been plenty of room for animals and feed for the limited number of local species.

Gavin Ross, Harpenden, Herts

Very very big.

JBowers

How was it that King Hamlet’s brother Claudius succeeded him to the throne when he died and not his son, Prince Hamlet?

Claudius planned his coup carefully. He waited till young Hamlet was in Wittenberg; he had already got Polonius (and presumably the other electors as well) on his side and wooed Gertrud. When Prince Hamlet returned to Denmark, it was a fait accompli.

Claudius’ justifications probably ran along these lines: his experienced political acumen versus his nephew’s lack of experience; the Norwegian threat, which requires a sure pair of hands; the unlikelihood that Gertrude would have any more children, meaning Hamlet’s heir was only postponed as he would almost certainly be Claudius’ eventual heir.

CatieG

Yes, there is no reason to assume that every throne of the day automatically passed to the eldest son upon the death of his parents. Shortly before Shakespeare was born, Edward VI. attempted to wrest the throne from his half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth, and he failed only because the nobility did not cooperate. In King John, set in an earlier time, Richard leaves his throne to his brother John rather than his child nephew Arthur; The nobles join in and John duly ascends to the throne and keeps it.

smug

Like yoga, has Pilates been practiced for thousands of years?

Pontius Pilates, the Roman governor who washed his hands from Jesus, invented his fitness program 2,000 years ago, so it’s likely his methods will be practiced for centuries to come. Count Otto von Pressup is also likely to have become immortal through his invention of physical training.

Avenue31

I thought it was Captain Sparrow who invented the exercise program in Pilates of the Caribbean.

Well

Answer more questions about…

How do you get rid of unwanted calls?

Were there jumping dinosaurs?

Today’s Advent tree reading was about David and Goliath. (Well, when I say today, I mean the ones we did today, that was the reading for December 11th. But if we do two tomorrow, we’ll catch up!) The story of David and Goliath is at By far my boys favorite Bible story because it has their favorite elements – war, guns and killing a big guy with a stone’s throw.

We’re in between the math syllabuses (we’ll start with this one and I’m really looking forward to it) so I figured we might as well turn Goliath’s size into a math activity! This was a great opportunity to cover non-standard units as well as measurement in feet and inches.

We pulled out our large roll of paper to measure Goliath’s size. 1 Samuel 17:4 says Goliath was six cubits and a span, and the notes in my Bible say that’s about 9 feet 9 inches. A “cubit” is the length from your elbow to the end of your middle finger – about 18 inches. A span is the span of your hand – about 9 inches. We used my arm for the measurement, although at 5′ 1″ I’m not exactly average! I asked Aidan how we should measure the 6 cubits. He suggested putting my arm on the paper and then he could mark each cubit with a pencil. I suggested using something else for the length – like a piece of string my arm’s length, although the arm method would work! We ended up using trios to build a pole the length of my arm.

We rolled out a large sheet of paper and I had each boy guess where Goliath’s size would be written on the paper. We marked their guesses. Then we measured the 6 cubits and a span. After that, we measured 9 feet 9 inches with a ruler. The 9ft 9in was the larger measurement by about 6in (no surprise since I’m so small!). It was fun seeing how big Goliath was! The boys were impressed that it was quite a bit bigger than our 8ft blankets!

This post is linked to Math Links

Creatures from the Hebrew Bible

The Nephilim (; Hebrew: נְפִילִים‎ Nəfīlīm) are mysterious beings or people in the Hebrew Bible who are tall and strong.[1] The word Nephilim is loosely translated as giants in some translations of the Hebrew Bible, but left untranslated in others. Jewish explanations interpret them as hybrid sons of fallen angels.

The primary reference to them is in Genesis, but the passage is ambiguous and the identity of the Nephilim is disputed.[1][2] According to the Book of Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

A similar or identical Biblical Hebrew term, read by some scholars as “Nephilim” or the word “fallen” by others, appears in the book of Ezekiel 32:27.[3][4]

Etymology[ edit ]

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon (1908) gives the meaning of nephilim as “giants” and considers that proposed etymologies of the word are “all very precarious”.[5] Many proposed interpretations are based on the assumption that the word is a derivation of the Hebrew verbal root n-p-l (נ־פ־ל) “to fall”. Robert Baker Girdlestone[6] argued in 1871 that the word came from the causal stem hif’il, implying that the Nephilim should be perceived as “those who cause others to fall”. Ronald Hendel states that it is a passive form: “the fallen ones”, grammatically analogous to paqid “one who is appointed” (i.e. a deputy or warden), asir “one who is bound” (i.e. a prisoner ), etc.[7][8]

Most of the ancient Bible translations—including the Septuagint, Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Targum, Targum Onkelos, and Targum Neofiti—interpret the word as “giants.”[9] Symmachus translates it as “the violent”[10] [11][12] and Aquila’s translation has been interpreted to mean either “the fallen”[10] or “those who fall [on their enemies]”.[12 ][13]

In the Hebrew Bible[ edit ]

There are three related passages in the Hebrew Bible that refer to the Nephilim. Two of these are from the Pentateuch. The first occurrence is in Genesis 6:1–4, just before the account of Noah’s ark. Genesis 6:4 reads as follows:

The Nephilim were upon the earth in those days and also afterward, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and she bore them children; the same were the mighty men that once were, the men of standing.[14]

Where the Jewish Publication Society translation[14] simply transliterated the Hebrew Nephilim as “Nephilim,” the King James Version translated the term as “giants.”[15]

The nature of the Nephilim is complicated by the ambiguity of Genesis 6:4, which leaves it unclear whether they are the “sons of God” or their descendants, who are the “mighty men of old, men of honor.” Richard Hess understood the Nephilim to be the descendants[16] as did P.W. Coxon.[17]

The second is Numbers 13:32-33, where ten of the Twelve spies report seeing fearsome giants in Canaan:

And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, descended from the Nephilim; and we were like locusts in our own eyes, and so were we in their eyes.[14]

Outside of the Pentateuch there is another passage that indirectly refers to Nephilim and this is Ezekiel 32:17-32. Of particular importance is Ezekiel 32:27, which contains a phrase of controversial importance. With the traditional vowels added to the text in the Middle Ages, the phrase gibborim nophlim (“fallen warriors” or “fallen gibborim”) is read, although some scholars have interpreted the phrase as gibborim nephilim (“Nephilim warriors” or “warriors, Nephilim “)read”).[18][19][20] According to Ronald S. Hendel, the phrase relating to Genesis 6:4 should be interpreted as “warriors, the Nephilim.” The verse understood by Hendel is

They lie with the warriors, the ancient Nephilim, who descended into Sheol with their weapons of war. They laid their swords under their heads and their shields on their bones, for the terror of the warriors was upon the land of the living.[19]

Brian R. Doak, on the other hand, suggests reading the term as the Hebrew verb “fallen” (נופלים nophlim), not using the specific term “Nephilim”, but still finding a clear reference to the Nephilim tradition as in Genesis, according to Doak .[21]

Interpretations[edit]

giants [edit]

Most of the contemporary English translations of Genesis 6:1-4 and Numbers 13:33 render the Hebrew Nefilim as “giants.” Again, this tendency stems from the fact that one of the earliest translations of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, written in the 3rd or 2nd century B.C. was written, the word in question is given as gigantes. The choice made by the Greek translators was later adopted in the Latin translation, the Vulgate, compiled in the 4th or 5th century AD, which uses the transliteration of the Greek term rather than the literal translation of the Hebrew Nefilim. From there the tradition of the vast posterity of the sons of God and the daughters of men spread to later medieval Bible translations.[22]

The Greek translators’ decision to render the Hebrew nefilim as Greek gigantes is another matter. The Hebrew nefilim literally means “the fallen ones” and the strict translation into Greek would be peptokotes, which actually occurs in the Septuagint of Ezekiel 32:22-27. It seems, then, that the authors of the Septuagint wanted not only to simply translate the foreign term into Greek, but also to use a term that would be understandable and meaningful to their Hellenistic audience. Given the complex meaning of the Nefilim that emerged from the three related Scriptures (man-divine hybrids in Genesis 6, indigenous people in Numbers 13, and ancient warriors trapped in the underworld in Ezekiel 32), the Greek translators saw some similarities . Primarily, both Nefilim and Gigantes were liminal beings resulting from the union of the opposite orders and as such retained the ambiguous status between the human and the divine. Equally sombre was their moral denomination, and the sources testified to both the awe and fascination with which these figures must have been viewed. Second, both were presented as chaotic qualities and posed a serious danger to gods and humans. They appeared in either prehistoric or protohistoric contexts, but in both cases they predated the order of the cosmos. Finally, both Gigantes and Nefilim were clearly associated with the underworld and said to be from Earth, and both end up trapped within it.[22]

In 1 Enoch they were “great giants, three hundred cubits in height.” At 18 inches (45 centimeters) they would be 450 feet (137.16 meters) tall.

The Qur’an refers to the people of Ād in Qur’an 26:130, whom the prophet Hud refers to as Jabbarin (Hebrew: Gibborim), probably a reference to the Biblical Nephilim. The people of Ād are said to be giants, the tallest among them being 30 m high.[23] However, according to Islamic legend, the ʿĀd were not wiped out by the flood as some of them were too big to be drowned. Instead, after they rejected further warnings, God destroyed them.[24] After death they were banished to the lower levels of Hell.[25]

Fallen Angels[edit]

The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, sculpture by Daniel Chester French

All early sources refer to the “sons of heaven” as angels. From the third century B.C. There are references to Enochian literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Apocryphon of Genesis, the Document of Damascus, 4Q180), the Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus and the Book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). For example: 1 Enoch 7:2 “And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, saw her, they fell in love with her and said to one another, Come, let us choose women from the seed of men, and let us have children bear witness.” Some Christian apologists, such as Tertullian and especially Lactantius, shared this opinion.

The earliest statement in a secondary commentary explicitly interpreting that angelic beings mating with humans can be traced back to the rabbinic Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has since become particularly common in modern Christian commentary. This line of interpretation finds additional support in the text of Genesis 6:4, which contrasts the sons of God (male gender, divine nature) with the daughters of men (female gender, human nature). From this parallelism it might be inferred that the sons of God are understood as certain superhuman beings.[26]

The New American Bible Commentar draws a parallel with Jude and the statements in Genesis by suggesting that the epistle implicitly refers to the paternity of the Nephilim as heavenly beings who came to earth and had intercourse with women.[27] The Jerusalem Bible footnotes indicate that the biblical author intended the Nephilim to be an “anecdote of a superhuman race.”[28]

Some Christian commentators have argued against this view, citing Jesus’ statement that angels do not marry.[29] Others believe that Jesus was only referring to angels in heaven.[30]

Among the evidence cited in favor of the fallen angels interpretation is the fact that the phrase “the sons of God” (Hebrew: בְּנֵי הָֽאֱלֹהִים‎; or “sons of the gods”) is used twice outside of Genesis chapter 6 in the Book of Job (1:6 and 2:1) where the phrase specifically refers to angels. The Septuagint manuscript, Codex Alexandrinus, reading Genesis 6:2, renders this expression as “the angels of God,” while Codex Vaticanus reads “sons.”[31]

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan identifies the Nephilim as Shemihaza and the angels in 1 Enoch’s list of names.[32]

Second Temple Judaism[ edit ]

The history of the Nephilim is further elaborated in the Book of Enoch. The Greek, Aramaic, and major Ge’ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch and Jubilees, surviving in the 19th century and preserved in the British Museum and Vatican Library, link the origin of the Nephilim to the fallen angels and particularly to the Egrḗgoroi (Guardian). ). Samyaza, a high ranking angel, is said to lead a rebel sect of angels in a descent to earth to have intercourse with human women:

And it came to pass that when the children of men had multiplied, beautiful and graceful daughters were born unto them in those days. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw and desired them and said to one another: “Come, let us choose women from among the children of men, and we shall have children.” And Semjaza, who was their leader, said to them: “I am afraid you will not really consent to this deed, and I alone will have to pay the penalty for a great sin.” And they all answered him and said, “Let us all swear an oath, and swear to one another, not to give up this plan, but to do this thing.” Then they all swore together and bound themselves to it by mutual imprecations. And they were two hundred in all; who in the days of Jared went down to the top of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they swore by it and bound themselves by mutual curses…[33]

In this tradition, the children of the Nephilim are called Elioud, who are considered a separate race from the Nephilim, but they share the fate of the Nephilim.

Some believe that the fallen angels who begot the Nephilim were cast into Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6) (Greek Enoch 20:2),[34] a place of “total darkness.” One interpretation is that God granted ten percent of the Nephilim’s disembodied spirits to remain as demons after the Flood to attempt to mislead the human race until the Day of Judgment.

Along with Enoch, the Book of Jubilees (7:21-25) also states that in Noah’s day, the ridding of the earth from these Nephilim was one of God’s purposes for the flooding of the earth. These works describe the Nephilim as evil giants.

There are also allusions to these descendants in the deutero-canonical books of Judith (16:6), Sirach (16:7), Baruch (3:26-28), and Wisdom of Solomon (14:6), and in the non-canonical books. Deuterocanonical 3 Maccabees (2:4).

The New Testament letter of Jude (14-15) quotes 1 Enoch 1:9, which many scholars believe is based on Deuteronomy 33:2.[35][36][37] To most commentators, this confirms that the author of Jude saw the Enochian interpretations of Genesis 6 as correct; however, others[38] have questioned this.

Descendants of Seth and Cain[ edit ]

References to the descendants of Seth rebelling against God and interbreeding with the daughters of Cain can be found in both Christian and Jewish sources (e.g. St. Clement) from the second century AD. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible: Henok 2:1–3 “and the seed of Seth that were in the Holy Mount saw her and loved her. And they said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose daughters of Cain’s children; let us bear children for us.”

Orthodox Judaism has opposed the idea that Genesis 6 refers to angels or that angels could intermarry with men. Shimon bar Yochai cursed anyone who taught this idea. Rashi and Nahmanides followed him. Pseudo-Philo (Biblical Antiquities 3:1-3) may also imply that the “sons of God” were men.[39] Consequently, most Jewish commentaries and translations describe the Nephilim as descendants of “sons of nobles” rather than “sons of God” or “sons of angels.”[40] This is also the rendition suggested in the Targum Onqelos, Symmachus and the Samaritan Targum, which reads “sons of rulers” while Targum Neophyti reads “sons of judges”.

Likewise, a long held view among some Christians is that the “sons of God” were the formerly righteous descendants of Seth who rebelled, while the “daughters of men” were the unrighteous descendants of Cain and the Nephilim the descendants of their union .[41 ] This view, which, as described above, was prevalent in Jewish literature at least as far back as the 1st century AD [43] Ephrem the Syrian[44] and others. Proponents of this view have sought support from Jesus’ statement that “in those days before the flood they [people] married and married” (Matthew 24:38).[45]

Some individuals and groups, including St. Augustine, John Chrysostom, and John Calvin, take the view from Genesis 6:2 that the “angels” who begot the Nephilim referred to specific human males in the line of Seth, the sons of God were probably named in reference to their earlier covenant with Yahweh (cf. Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5); according to these sources, these men had begun to pursue physical interests and took wives from human daughters, e.g.

This is also the view of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,[46] supported by its own Ge’ez manuscripts and the Amharic translation of the Haile Selassie Bible – where the books of 1 Enoch and the Jubilees recognized by that church as canonically counted, differ from western scholarly editions.[47] The “sons of Seth view” is also the view presented in some extra-biblical but ancient works, including the Clementine literature, the 3rd-century Den of Treasures, and the ca. 6th-century Ge’ez work th century Adam and Eve’s conflict with Satan. In these sources, these descendants of Seth are said to have disobeyed God by interbreeding with the Cainites and producing wicked children “who were all different”, thereby angering God into bringing about the Deluge, as in conflict:

Some wise men of ancient times wrote about them, and say in their [holy] books that angels came down from heaven and mingled with the daughters of Cain, whom these giants bare to them. But these [wise men] are wrong in what they say. God forbid such a thing that angels who are spirits are caught sinning with humans. Never, that can’t be. And if such a thing were of the nature of angels or satans who fell, would they not leave a woman unsullied on earth… But many men say that angels came down from heaven and mated with women, and had children from them. This can not be true. But they were children of Seth, who were of the children of Adam, who dwelt on high on the mountain, while keeping their virginity, their innocence, and their glory like angels; and were then called ‘Angels of God’. But when they transgressed and mingled with the children of Cain and begot children, ill-informed men said that angels came down from heaven and mingled with the daughters of men, bearing them giants.

Arguments from culture and mythology[ edit ]

In Aramaic culture, the term Niyphelah refers to the constellation Orion and Nephilim to the descendants of Orion in mythology.[48] However, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon notes this as “a dubious etymology” and “all very precarious”.

J. C. Greenfield notes that “it has been suggested that the history of the Nephilim alluded to in Genesis 6 is based on some of the negative aspects of the Apkallu tradition.”[50] The Apkallu in Sumerian mythology were seven legendary culture heroes from formerly the Deluge, of human descent but with extraordinary wisdom of the gods, and one of the seven apkallu, Adapa, was therefore called “son of the Babylonian god Ea” despite his human origins.[51]

Arabic Paganism[ edit ]

The Arab pagans believed that fallen angels were sent to earth in the form of humans. Some of them mated with humans and produced hybrid children. As reported by Al-Jahiz, a common belief was that Abu Jurhum, the ancestor of the Jurhum tribe, was in fact the son of a disobedient angel and a human woman.[52][53]

Fossil remains[ edit ]

Cotton Mather believed that fossilized leg bones and teeth discovered near Albany, New York in 1705 were the remains of Nephilim who perished in a great flood. Paleontologists have identified these as mastodon remains.[54][55]

In popular culture[edit]

The name and idea of ​​Nephilim, like many other religious concepts, are sometimes used in popular culture. Examples include the goth rock band Fields of the Nephilim, the Renquist Quartet novels by Mick Farren, The Mortal Instruments, The Infernal Devices, The Last Hours, The Dark Artifices, and other books in The Shadowhunter Chronicles series by Cassandra Clare , The Hush, Hush series by Becca Fitzpatrick, the book Many Waters by Madeleine L’Engle and the TV series The X-Files and Supernatural. In the Darksiders video game series, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are said to be Nephilim, with the Nephilim being created through the unholy union of angels and demons. The main characters of the game DmC: Devil May Cry (2013), a reboot of the popular original series Devil May Cry, Dante and Virgil are also referred to as Nephilim; as a descendant of the demon Sparda and the angel Eve. In the trading card game Magic: The Gathering, the Nephilim are interpreted as ancient gods from before modern society.[56] In Diablo 3, the nephalem were the first humans on Sanctuary, formed as a result of the union of angels and demons. In the heist first-person shooter Payday 2, several paintings, artifacts, and faraway images refer to the Nephilim, and a secret game ending brings with it alien technology said to have been left behind by the Nephilim. A creature dubbed the “Nephilim” appears in Season 2 of the Japanese animated series Symphogear. Nephilim (RPG) is a role-playing game about powerful elementals reincarnating into humans.[57]

See also[edit]

cubit, linear unit of measurement used by many ancient and medieval peoples. It could be around 3000 BC. to have originated in Egypt; thereafter it became ubiquitous in the ancient world. The cubit, which is generally equated to 457 mm (18 inches), was based on the length of the arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger and was considered the equivalent of 6 palms or 2 spans. In some ancient cultures it was up to 21 inches (531 mm) long.

Life-size Noah’s Ark opens amid a tide of skepticism

Enlarge Image Toggle Caption Ashley Westerman/NPR Ashley Westerman/NPR

Built in the rolling hills of northern Kentucky, a replica of Noah’s Ark is literally of biblical proportions. The wooden structure is seven stories high and 1 1/2 soccer fields long.

“The Bible states that the original ark was 300 cubits long, using the Hebrew royal cubit, which by today’s calculations is 510 feet,” says Mark Looey, co-founder of Answers in Genesis, the Christian ministry that runs the attraction has built. It is the same group that opened the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky in 2007, which promotes a literal interpretation of the Bible and other teachings: that planet Earth is only 6,000 years old and man lived side by side with dinosaurs.

The Ark attraction has been mired in controversy for years, and while Answers in Genesis promises jobs and more tourism in a region in dire need of an economic boost, it’s been a pretty mixed blessing for many who live there.

‘After the Flash and Bang’

The Ark offers three decks of exhibits so sophisticated you might think you’ve stepped into Disney World.

However, there are no live animals on the ark. “There’s a zoo for them back there,” says Looey. Instead, the ark will be filled with lifelike animal models — including dinosaurs and a pair of unicorns — designed by many of the people who also made exhibits for the Creation Museum.

The ark doesn’t float either. Ken Ham, President and CEO of Answers in Genesis and Ark Encounter, says it wasn’t built to swim. “We built it as a reminder, a reminder of God’s Word and the account of Noah and the Flood,” he says.

Religion Noah’s Ark in Kentucky meets controversy Noah’s Ark in Kentucky meets controversy Listen · 3:21 3:21

It cost $100 million to build and is expected to attract up to 2 million visitors a year and millions in tourism revenue, according to an independent study by the ministry. Looey says they have already hired over 300 people and hundreds more jobs are on the way when the other phases – including a walled city and a replica Tower of Babel – are complete.

Many in Williamstown, Kentucky, the small town just across Interstate 75 from the attraction, are waiting with bated breath for the grand opening. The town — the rural seat of Grant County, Kentucky — has a population of about 4,000. It’s a mid-range sleeper community right between Cincinnati and Lexington, Kentucky.

Williamstown Mayor Rick Skinner, an avid supporter of the attraction, says the city has already upgraded its electricity supply and built a new water treatment plant. The city center is also getting a facelift. Many new stores have opened on Main Street, while others are undergoing renovations. Before news of the Ark encounter hit town, the old brick buildings that lined Main Street were mostly empty.

Enlarge Image Toggle Caption Ashley Westerman/NPR Ashley Westerman/NPR

Local attorney Bill Adkins says when the recession hit Williamstown, it hit it hard. He remembers sitting in foreclosure settlements almost every week.

According to the study cited by Answers in Genesis, the Ark’s economic impact will be approximately $4 billion over the next decade. But Adkins is skeptical.

“We haven’t seen the hotels, we haven’t seen the restaurants that come in to support this attraction,” he says. “I think a lot of people are waiting to invest because they want to see if after the bang and bang of the opening, what happens next.”

Answers in Genesis point to the success of the Creation Museum as evidence of the Ark’s potential. The ministry says the museum has 300,000 visitors a year and that its generated revenue has exceeded expectations, although they would not give figures.

Then there are controversies surrounding the project, provoking a debate about the separation of church and state. The state withdrew tax incentives it had given Answers in Genesis, in part because the department refused to promise it would not discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring. The state said the project has evolved from a tourist attraction into an extension of the ministry.

The tax breaks were later reinstated after Answers in Genesis sued in federal court and won.

Adkins is uneasy about up to $18 million worth of tax breaks the department is getting from the state. Answers in Genesis is considered a tax-exempt church, and critics of the Ark project have said tax breaks amount to “double dipping.”

Enlarge Image Toggle Caption Ashley Westerman/NPR Ashley Westerman/NPR

He also just doesn’t like the fact that applicants have to adhere to the ministry’s rigid moral standards and beliefs.

“The fact that you have to submit to your own convictions in order to correspond to those of an employer,” he says, “that strikes me as very intrusive and very depressing.

A federal judge ruled earlier this year that Answers in Genesis, as a religious group, has the right to restrict its hiring.

Resident Jay Novarra is upset with local leaders. In addition to providing free land for the project, Williamstown Answers also gave $62 million in bonds to Genesis. The ministry says the city won’t be on the hook for these.

As a farmer, Novarra is concerned about rising water prices as the city also supplies water to the Ark.

“We have a lot of people who farm for a living, and you start increasing the price we have to pay to grow our food, then you definitely affect farmers,” she says. “And I have to ask myself: What’s in it for the farmer?”

Mayor Skinner says there is no contingency plan. They put all their eggs in one basket – similar to Noah.

Goliath, the giant felled by King David in the Hebrew Bible, is described as staggering in size.

But that number may not have been a true physical measure, but rather a metaphor, coming from the width of his hometown’s city walls, new research suggests. This does not reveal whether other aspects of the story are true – for example, whether Goliath was a giant or whether his unequal fight took place with David.

“We’re not trying to make a statement about the accuracy of the story,” said Jeffrey Chadwick, Jerusalem Center professor of archeology and Middle Eastern studies at Brigham Young University, in a paper he presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). ) virtual annual meeting on November 19th. “The problem is the metric,” he said, “where does it come from, where could it have been obtained?”

Related: Biblical Battles: 12 Ancient Wars from the Bible

Old Metrics

The lower northern city wall in the ancient city of Gath was about 2.38 meters wide. This is equivalent to four cubits and a span—the same height that Goliath, according to some biblical texts, once was. (Image credit: Aren Maeir, 2019)

(opens in new tab)

Some ancient texts say that Goliath stood at “four cubits and a span” – which, according to Chadwick, is about 7.80 feet (2.38 meters) – while other ancient texts claim that he was “six cubits and a span” tall – a measurement equivalent to about 11.35 feet (3.46 m). That would certainly have been an impressive height, as the tallest recorded person of modern times was Robert Wadlow, who stood at an impressive 2.72 m (8 ft 11 in) according to Guinness World Records.

But how much these “cubits” and “spans” are in modern measurements is a source of debate among scholars. These measurements likely varied throughout the ancient world. Chadwick has studied ancient architectural sites throughout ancient Israel, measuring the remains of numerous structures and noting measurements that appear to be commonly used. His research shows that a “cubit” in the region was 1.77 feet (54 centimeters) and a wingspan was 0.72 feet (22 cm). He prepares his metrical research for publication.

Hometown measurement

The site of Gath (also known as Tell es-Safi) can be seen from afar here. According to the Hebrew Bible, it was the hometown of Goliath. (Image credit: Jeff Chadwick)

(opens in new tab)

Chadwick is part of a team excavating Gath (aka Tell es-Safi), a Philistine city where, according to the Hebrew Bible, Goliath grew up.

Related: 7 Biblical Artifacts That Will Likely Never Be Found

Recently, the team excavated a fortification wall found in the northern part of the lower city. The wall was built in the 10th century BC. It was built around 1000 B.C., a time “when the Philistines controlled the city since it served as their capital,” Chadwick told Live Science. “The stone wall foundations were exactly eight feet wide at any point along the 130 feet of their line uncovered by our excavation—four cubits and a span,” Chadwick said. He determined that the wall was possibly 7 m high.

In his ASOR presentation, Chadwick suggested that biblical writers may have obtained Goliath’s height from the breadth of Gath’s northern lower city wall. He noted that Goliath is the only person whose exact height is recorded in the Bible. “No one else’s height is recorded as an actual metric,” Chadwick said.

Given that the Bible authors probably did not have access to Goliath’s body, the question remains as to how the Biblical authors got Goliath’s size of “four cubits and a span.”

It is possible, then, that the authors “metaphorically described the Champion [Goliath] as comparable to the size and strength of the walled city of the Philistine capital – a metric that would have survived for many centuries and by those familiar with Gath.” , would have been known,” Chadwick said.

Live Science contacted several experts unaffiliated with the research for their opinions on Chadwick’s theory. At the time of publication, no one was able to reply. The excavations at Gath are being led by Aren Maeir, a professor of archeology at Bar Ilan University in Israel.

Originally published on Live Science.