Answers in Genesis Response

Hi guys, I got a call back Answers in Genesis, and they told me about a guy who did a simmilar thing to us, and did a reconstruction of Noah's Ark. check it out at www.worldwideflood.com

They said they are keen to help us out wherever they can and would love to come out and see the exibit when it is done.

They also sent me this email which will prove very helpful.
-----------
Dear Tim
Here is some information relevant to the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple (the Royal Egyptian Cubit is 524 mm):
Genesis was written (or compiled) by Moses some time before his death in 1451BC (Ussher chronology). Obviously he would have been familiar with both the common and royal cubit lengths. Which one did he mean in Genesis? Perhaps here is a clue: When he wrote about the length of King Og's bed (Duet 3:11) he used the term "the cubit of man", which sounds like a reference to something anatomically contemporaneous, or a "common" cubit. If it is a hint for the common cubit, then the unqualified cubits in the rest of his writings (like Genesis) are likely to be the other ones - royal cubits.
Moses used unqualified cubits for the pattern of the Tabernacle (portable temple - Pre Solomon). (Ex 25-27). The Hebrew craftsmen 30 should have been well versed in the royal cubit from Egypt before they built the Tabernacle. Zuidhof 31 argues for the 7 palm royal as the most appropriate measure for the Tabernacle covering. In any case, the royal cubit is a natural choice for a project with religious significance.
A stronger clue comes some time later when Solomon, following David's divinely inspired directions 32 for the temple design, used "the cubit after the first measure". Which cubit was this? Obviously not the "usual" cubit of the Hebrews, which looks very much like the common from Biblically "late" archeological evidence like the Siloam tunnel 33. So it must have been the royal, that Moses used for the Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant. (i.e. from Solomon's perspective, the "old" measure). This almost looks as though the royal cubit was the "correct" one for temples, something even the Egyptian pagans understood. Zuidhof makes a case for the royal cubit for Solomon's molten sea 34.
Lastly, in Ezekiel's vision, an angel measures the temple with a reed (rod) of 6 cubits, each cubit being of a "cubit plus a handbreadth". Amazingly, some have argued against this being a definition of the royal cubit, but to Ezekiel's audience (which includes us), there is probably no better way to say "Royal Cubit", since it was always one handbreadth longer than the common cubit - in both Egypt and Babylon.
So if God specified royal cubits for the future temple, there's a good chance he specified the same for Solomon's Temple 35. It was definitely the cubit of choice for ancient and impressive constructions of early Egypt and Babylon - especially anything religious.
http://www.WorldWideFlood.com/ark/noahs_cubit/cubit_paper.htm
This is from the webpage ‘A More Likely Cubit for Noah's Ark?’ on Tim Lovett’s WorldWideFlood.com website. I mentioned this website to you on the phone.
Yours sincerely
Andrew
Andrew Lamb
Information Officer
Answers in Genesis
PO Box 6302, Acacia Ridge QLD 4110, Australia
Phone: (07) 3273 7650 Fax: (07) 3273 7672
Website: http://www.AnswersinGenesis.org
Australian Business Number: 31 010 120 304