Gordon,

The beams were 1.5 cubits wide, according to the Bible. There is nothing to indicate their thickness that I have found, but considering they have tenons in them and sockets, I think they must have been at least six inches thick. Covered in gold, and being of the "shittim" or "acacia" wood, which is a hard wood, these beams were not toothpicks by any means. They would be carried on a wagon. Only the ark itself was to be carried by hand.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As GC pointed out, they were 1.5 cubits wide.

Yes, I meant 1 cubit thick. Very thick. But if I understand correctly, they were hollow. Even if only 6 inches thick, they would have been quite hefty if they were solid.

Plus, the cubit was the sanctuary cubit - a cubit and a handbreadth, which ends up at 1.8 feet, and matches the 10 cubits = 18 feet in the SOP. So it's a little bigger than the usual 18 inches. They were large boards.

I would check my book again, but it is still packed away. Despite my vast experience in moving, I still find unpacking a very difficult task. Perhaps someone else has the book handy.

So if these cubits were not ~18 inches, taking Arnold's recollection from the SOP, we get boards:

18 ft. x 32.5 inches roughly.

Green's assertion is at least 6 inches thick, so maybe 8 or even 10 inches?

[BTW, these are not boards, but beams, even at 6 inches. WMD in a windstorm.]

Anyone here worked in forestry or construction?
Especially with hardwood trees?

Arnold, it would help to know the book you refer to for:
* 1 cubit thick
* hollow boards
* a sanctuary cubit

_____________________

At 18 feet x 32.5 inches wide:

Quite roughly & quickly, with online resources,
using dried white oak as a substitute (similar to sugar maple or rock elm in density),
if solid these 'boards' would weigh:

* about 1500 lbs. @ 6" thick
* about 2000 lbs. @ 8" thick
* about 2500 lbs. @ 10" thick

Accacia wood could be denser - quite likely if God was to require the hardest wood available.
Correct these figures if necessary, I'm not a forestry tech.

Are there 54 boards?
That would be 81,000 or 108,000 or 135,000 lbs.

Two or three semi trailer loads.

________________________

With JESUS in His SANCTUARY by Leslie Hardinge. I found an online version here: http://freedownload.is/pdf/leslie-hardinge-with-jesus-in-his-sanctuary-20369641.html


The walls of the Tabernacle consisted of forty-eight acacia planks covered with gold. Each "board" was ten cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. Its thickness must be deduced from the facts given by Inspiration, as we shall see. When fixed side by side, the boards enclosed a building ten by thirty cubits, and ten cubits high (Ex 26:15-30), that is, eighteen by eighteen by fifty-five feet.

Each board was constructed with two tenons at its lower end (Ex 26:17-25). These protrusions were one cubit long, and so arranged as to fit into mortices cut into two wooden bases or "sockets." These base-blocks were overlaid with silver, and attached transversely to the width of the planks. They afforded a plinth one cubit high on which the structure stood. There is no record of the length of these footings, but they must have extended a little distance beyond the width of the boards on either side to spread the weight of the entire structure. The height of the Tabernacle included the one cubit length of these tenons.

Each of the twenty boards, forming the northern and southern sides of the building, was linked to its neighbor. The Mishnah records that letters of the Hebrew alphabet were written "on the boards of the Tabernacle that they might know which adjoined which" (Shabbath 12:3). At each end of the top surface of the boards a semicircular slot was cut, so that, when two boards abutted, these formed an incised circular groove. Into these slots rings of gold were dropped. These held the boards firmly together.

Each of the forty-six boards thus needed a semi-circular slot at each end. But the two special end boards of the western wall required similar semi-circular slots on one side to accommodate the boards of the north and south walls which abutted them. Because of this peculiarity these two boards formed left and right extensions to the six western boards already mentioned. Since the term "board" is used of them, as well as of the other forty-six, we conclude that they were of the same dimensions.

The eight western boards would, therefore, extend to twelve cubits when placed side by side. Since the inside measurement of the Tabernacle is given as ten cubits, the conclusion must be drawn that the boards were one cubit thick! The rabbis ask the question and provide the answer, "What was the thickness of the boards? One cubit" (The Talmud, Mo'ed II, Sabbath II, 98a). Each board measured thirty-three inches wide, twenty-two inches thick and eighteen feet long. Were they made of solid acacia this huge bulk would render them almost immovable! We must, therefore, conclude that the "boards" were hollow panels. (pp. 11-12)


A word regarding the length of the cubit used in the Tabernacle is apropos. The ordinary or secular cubit is the distance along the forearm from the elbow to the end of the middle finger. It measures about eighteen inches (see SL 28, where 60 cubits equal 90 feet), and varies from person to person. The sacred cubit, sometimes called the royal cubit, consisted of this secular cubit plus a hand-breath of about four inches (Ezek 40:5; 43:13). It would thus be l.8 feet, or a fraction shy of 22 inches. It is also called the "great cubit" (Ezek 41:8). By using it the Tabernacle is found to be eighteen feet high and wide, and almost fifty-five feet in length (PP 347), while the court would be ninety by one hundred and eighty feet. The dimensions of the various pieces of furniture found in the Sanctuary, and given in cubits, can be calculated in feet and inches from this unit. (p. 9)

Since this is neither the Bible nor the SOP, just take it FWIW. But it makes sense to me.

Thanks Arnold,

I see the Hardinge book was mentioned earlier. I thought you were referring to an old EGW source like Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 1 or 2.

I don't know about the Sanctuary or Royal cubit. It could be.

The 'one cubit thick hollow boards' seem solely based upon deduction by the rabbis using outside and inside dimensions. For certain there's a problem, but maybe there's another explanation, because hollow panels seem quite improbable without some detailed instruction for this unusual design. Most sanctuary components were explained in careful detail. I noted the measurement discrepancy when previously studying Exodus, but never concluded hollow panels.

One could argue thick hollow panels 'represent' stone walls, but quite impractical for transport, prone to damage. And how are the tenons attached to hollow panels? If they come off one side of the panel, it would need to be min. two inches thick (my guess). And if all sides of the 'box' are two inches... a very heavy and unwieldy box structure. And imbalanced with tenons on one side. And how assembled, etc??

Notwithstanding the interior/exterior dimensions, solid board walls could be about two inches thick. Any less would make the extending tenons too fragile. Tenons of 22 inches do not seem practical either, but I will need to locate it in Exodus, presuming Hardinge did not misquote.

So far, Hardinge's explanation doesn't make sense to me. More questions than answers.

For those with trouble to understand the socket and tenon joint (known as mortise and tenon joint)...

Each vertical wooden board of the sanctuary wall had two tenons projecting from its bottom end. These fit into silver sockets (metal reinforced mortises) in the sanctuary base.




______________________

BTW, how many boards in Exodus 26:15-25?

________

Wow. A flurry of discussion has taken place since I was last here. This is nice, as we are seeing more details. Without taking time to address individual points of all the posts just above, let me address a few details that perhaps will help to fill in some missing pieces.

1) Mrs. White never gives the dimensions. The dimensions she gives are to say it was "no larger" than that. She does not indicate that the actual size was that of her "maximum" amount. So it may well have been somewhat less, and lest we forget, the curtains themselves would add to the overall size, so Ellen White's figure does not address the size of the boards by themselves, because she is speaking of the entire structure.


So we know it was not larger than that, but it could have been smaller. She calls it small.

2) Acacia (shittim) wood was not so hard as to render its density like that of oak. Mrs. White says it was harder than anything else in that region of Sinai, but doesn't claim it was extraordinarily dense.



Actual figures for its density/weight per board foot can be found online, such as HERE. According to that site, acacia wood weighs about 25 pounds per cubic foot, which is the same as aspen. It is one of the lighter woods in the list. (Compare bamboo and white oak at 48 lbs./cu. ft. or balsa at 7.)

Using the 25 lbs./cu. ft. figure above, given a 6" thick plank, I calculated about 300 lbs. per board.

3) Ezekiel's temple was never built. The dimensions it used are unparalleled on earth, and cannot be directly applied to the wilderness sanctuary.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So,

* 18 ft. long
* 32.5 inches = 2.7 ft wide
* 6 inches thick = .5 feet
-----------------------------

18ft. x 2.7ft. x .5ft. = 24.3cu.ft. per board
-----------------------------

24.3 cu. ft. x 25 lbs. = 607lbs. per board using Arnold's Royal cubit.

or...17 cu.ft. x 25 lbs. = 425lbs. using the 18 inch cubit

Your reference may not be the shittim wood used for the sanctuary. Photos reveal this is more a shrub type thorn bush than a towering giant needed to supply large boards or beams. And there are "1300 species" according to Wikipedia, so 25 lbs./cu.ft. could be half the real density. It may describe a completely different plant than Moses used.

"Biblical woods": http://www.exoticwood.biz/biblicalwoods.htm


A 2" thick board at this density would only weigh 140lbs. with the 18" cubit.
___________________________