New IJMS article: Hollis R. Johnson, "One Day to a Cubit"

[Guest]

Last Friday IJMS published a short, speculative article by Hollis Johnson titled "One Day to a Cubit," which proposes an interpretation of the phrase "one day to a cubit" in the explanation of Fig. 1 of facsimile 2 from the Book of Abraham. The article's abstract, which seems incomplete, states:

An investigation of ancient astronomy shows that a cubit was used not only as the metric of length (elbow to fingertip) but also as a metric of angle in the sky. That suggested a new interpretation that fits naturally: the brightest celestial object—the sun—moves eastward around the sky, relative to the stars, during the course of a year, by one cubit per day!

Johnson writes:

A hint toward an interpretation of the odd phrase in the Book of Abraham comes from an extended meaning of the word cubit. Although originally and widely employed as a measure of length (above), the use of the word was extended by ancient scholars to include a measure of angle, especially in the sky.

Johnson states “as far as this author is aware, no precise interpretation of the phrase [one day to a cubit] has been given.” Previous speculation about this phrase can be found in several sources, including the following: George Reynolds, “The Book of Abraham—Its Genuineness Established,” Millennial Star 41 (Mar. 17, 1879): 161-163; Melvin A. Cook and M. Garfield Cook, Science and Mormonism: Correlations, Conflicts and Conciliations (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1967); and Allen J. Fletcher, A Study Guide to the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham (Springville, UT: CFI, 2006).

Johnson provides limited support for his thesis, citing two examples of the use of the term to include a measure of angle: one by Marco Polo (ca. AD 1300) and one found in a Mesopotamian text from 331 BC.

Errors in the article include the following:

223: “1000” should read “a thousand”

223: “the earth” should read “this earth”

223 n. 1: “and FARMS” should be deleted.

224: “Kirtland Egyptian Project” should probably read “Kirtland Egyptian Papers Project”

224 n. 5: full citation not provided.

225: “Since the word [cubit] is now obsolete, it is of interest only because of its use in the Bible and the Book of Abraham.” I'm not certain that this statement is strictly accurate. I would suggest that it's also of interest because of its use outside the Bible and the Book of Abraham.

226: “water to” should read “water for”

226: “is more” should read “is still more”

226: “the moon was” should appear in square brackets.

226: “six” should read “6”

226: “below” should appear in square brackets.

226: “the constellation name” should edited to read “the Latin constellation name”

226 n. 12: subtitle of Wrestling with Nature is missing.

229: comma missing following “Horsens”

229: Latham’s translation of Travels of Marco Polo is missing from the bibliography.

229: listing for Studies in Scripture volume is missing the publication year (1985).

229: two publication dates are provided for Nibley’s Abraham in Egypt.

229: Peterson is misspelled.

230: subtitle of Wrestling with Nature is missing.

230: middle initial missing in Michael H. Shank’s name.

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks as always, Tom. Your reviews of these articles are most useful.

[_Tom]

Thank you, Kishkumen.

I should add that the explanation apparently derives from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (see, e.g., here and pp. 206-207 here).

[Guest]

Thanks, Tom.

Again, well done.

This appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable paper commenting on a previously unexplained passage in the Book of Abraham by someone who certainly appears qualified to do the background research and come to the conclusions drawn.

Not sure it does much to help establish what Joseph Smith claimed to be the provenance of the Book of Abraham, though, especially since Smith was known to have taken great interest in The Travels of Marco Polo by William Marsden (1818).
_______________________

deleted content

[_DrW]

Forgot to mention that they could also do without the exclamation point at the end of the Abstract.

-Bump-

[_Analytics]

John Tvedtnes posted the following response:

Back in the late 1950s, University of Utah Prof. Melvin Cook noted that the “one day to a cubit” of Abraham Fac. 1 Fig. 1 made sense in Einsteinian terms. I.e., as one approaches the speed of light, time becomes distance and vice-versa. Hence, God, who must travel faster than the speed of light (not possible according to Einstein) would experience such a shift and could therefore be, during his travels, everywhere at the same time, and see past, present, and future (D&C 38:2; 88:41; 130:6-7). Using the Lawrence-Fitzgerald transformation formula (intended to explain how much distance equates to how much time & vice-versa), Cook noted that the 1,000 years of a Kolob day came to 18 cm., a handspan. He discussed this in his 1967 book, Science and Mormonism.

Does that make any sense? I'm presuming that by the "Lawrence-Fitzgerald transformation formula" he's talking about the Lorentz contraction formula. But that formula says that distance and time contract as an object approaches the speed of light--not that time becomes distance. Does the notion that "time becomes distance" actually mean anything?

For example, I get that at a certian velocity, a length of 1,000 light-years contracts to a length of 18 centimeters. But relativity doesn't "equate" time and distance like Cook alegedly said, does it?

[_DrW]

John Tvedtnes posted the following response:

Back in the late 1950s, University of Utah Prof. Melvin Cook noted that the “one day to a cubit” of Abraham Fac. 1 Fig. 1 made sense in Einsteinian terms. I.e., as one approaches the speed of light, time becomes distance and vice-versa. Hence, God, who must travel faster than the speed of light (not possible according to Einstein) would experience such a shift and could therefore be, during his travels, everywhere at the same time, and see past, present, and future (D&C 38:2; 88:41; 130:6-7). Using the Lawrence-Fitzgerald transformation formula (intended to explain how much distance equates to how much time & vice-versa), Cook noted that the 1,000 years of a Kolob day came to 18 cm., a handspan. He discussed this in his 1967 book, Science and Mormonism.

Does that make any sense? I'm presuming that by the "Lawrence-Fitzgerald transformation formula" he's talking about the Lorentz contraction formula. But that formula says that distance and time contract as an object approaches the speed of light--not that time becomes distance. Does the notion that "time becomes distance" actually mean anything?

For example, I get that at a certian velocity, a length of 1,000 light-years contracts to a length of 18 centimeters. But relativity doesn't "equate" time and distance like Cook alegedly said, does it?

You are absolutely right. The explanation in the quotation from John Tvedtnes in your post is utter nonsense.

The Lorentz contraction equation is simply:

L = Lo x (1- (v^2/c^2))^1/2

where:

Lo is the proper length (the length of the object in its rest frame),
L is the length observed by an observer in relative motion with respect to the object,
v is the relative velocity between the observer and the moving object,
c is the speed of light.

There is no way to reasonably interpret this equation to conclude that "time becomes distance" at relativistic speeds.

__________________________

As a quick check, I did a Google search on the string < Lorentz contraction "time becomes distance"> , and the only hit was this thread.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for one of the most extraordinary works of scholarship I've ever read. I could feel the terror ratchet up in my gut with each additional error made. What style guide are these editors using anyway? It's definitely not as scholarly as the ones we use.

Well, I don't follow the Book of Abraham theories much as I tend to just dismiss the story without giving it any serious consideration. But I had a few minutes to spare to debunk the years of research put into this theory so I figured what the heck?

http://user.xmission.com/~research/about/alphabet.htm

It turns out that a "cubit" is a mystical measurement applicable to a variety of "holy" scalar and vector quantities. It's not that it couldn't mean an angle, it very well could, but since it can mean other things and in this context measures time directly, it probably just means a holy measure of time.

Kli floisis measurement of time: it is used to signify twenty four cubits of measurement and is increased or lessened according to the sign of the degrees

Veh Kli flos isis The same fixed star planet in its motion according to the cubit measurement of time: Four cubits (that is the length from the end of the longest finger to the end of the other when the arms are extended; making in our measure seven feet, which is twenty-one inches to a cubit.) Twelve days are equal to four cubits

runs one cubit according to the measure of time in cubits a cubit of motion is increased or lessened according to the sign of the degrees

[_ludwigm]

The length of the horn of an unicorn is exactly one cubit long.

And pi second is one nanocentury.

We are living in a pukka world, fine tuned by Jehovah. Or by Elohim. Or by both - with the help of Holy Ghost. Or by Holy Spirit. As far as it was translated to jacobean English.

[_Tom]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for one of the most extraordinary works of scholarship I've ever read. I could feel the terror ratchet up in my gut with each additional error made. What style guide are these editors using anyway? It's definitely not as scholarly as the ones we use.

Well, I don't follow the Book of Abraham theories much as I tend to just dismiss the story without giving it any serious consideration. But I had a few minutes to spare to debunk the years of research put into this theory so I figured what the heck?

http://user.xmission.com/~research/about/alphabet.htm

It turns out that a "cubit" is a mystical measurement applicable to a variety of "holy" scalar and vector quantities. It's not that it couldn't mean an angle, it very well could, but since it can mean other things and in this context measures time directly, it probably just means a holy measure of time.

Kli floisis measurement of time: it is used to signify twenty four cubits of measurement and is increased or lessened according to the sign of the degrees

Veh Kli flos isis The same fixed star planet in its motion according to the cubit measurement of time: Four cubits (that is the length from the end of the longest finger to the end of the other when the arms are extended; making in our measure seven feet, which is twenty-one inches to a cubit.) Twelve days are equal to four cubits

runs one cubit according to the measure of time in cubits a cubit of motion is increased or lessened according to the sign of the degrees

Excellent insight, Gadianton. It appears that Johnson overlooked the simplest possible explanation for the meaning of the term "cubit" in this context.

I must insist that my listing of errors is primarily meant to move the work along. All my peer review efforts, from 2012 to the present, have been an offering that I have placed on the altar in an effort to find favor in the sight of the Big Scholars (B.S.) (to use John Sorenson's felicitous term and abbreviation).