It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Great Pyramid And Sphinx, The Lies And Deceptions

page: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Dark, The question here becomes where was the border of Egypt at the time of King Solomon. It is clear from the Bible that he ruled over most of the land in the general area now known as Egypt.

1KI 4:21 And Solomon RULED over all the kingdoms from the River unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life


Yes, Lastday, but that claim is NOT supported by the archaeological record. And it isn't even supported by your quote! The River is the River Jordan, while the land of the Philistines is the coastal strip around Gaza and points northwards (interestingly enough the Philistines themselves were Myceaneans, something that the archaeological record states quite clearly). The border with Egypt was close to Gaza, because that area was a high-status military zone. The only time that the ancient Egyptians ever lost northern Egypt - which is what you are claiming - is during the Hyksos Invasion, which was centuries before the time of Solomon. Israel just wasn't powerful enough to seize that area.




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   

ISA 19:19 In that day shall there be an altar to Jehovah in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the BORDER THEREOF to Jehovah
20 ...and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them


If we're getting prophetic, this sounds like a prophecy of the NT flight into Egypt after the Nativity...

You ask for a connection with Egypt with the pryamids. Well..... as the previous poster pointed out, they are in Egypt. Also, lest it has escaped your attention, Egypt is chockablock with other pyramids too, some appearring older, some newer, than the Great Pyramid. I won't bother to list them here as the info is vast and simple to drag up from google.

As it seems to be your starting premise, the "encoding" of the figures into the pyramid you claim stands to be proven as a) specific, b) intentional, and c) impossible given the context... claims I don't think have been demonstrated - excercises in teleological and inverse logic notwithstanding. I would find this thread more satisfying if we aproached those issues (though I'm sure there are plenty of older threads on here which have done that already).

Cheers.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by d60944]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Lastday Prophet, you won't even answer me on what cubit you are using or any of the other questions.

Come on, which cubit measures "20" and "20" what?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
This is what I am talking about, Odium you don't even read the replies, I answered your question.


I use 20 inches as the measure of a cubit because there are different cubits, 20 inches would be average, there is no such thing as a standard cubit. It is not by chance that if you use a 20 inch cubit the math comes out exact, this could be no mere coincidence.


Another foolish answer, "The Pyramid is connected to the Egyptians because there are other Pyramids in Egypt"

We are not talking about the other Pyramids, we are talking about how The Great Pyramid is connected to the Egyptians.

I agree that the other Pyramids are Egyptian, but they are all inferior copies of The Great Pyramid and have no mathematics encoded in them whatsoever, proving that they were not built by the same people.

They tell us the Lie that the others were built first, but it's just that, "A LIE"

As far as the archaeological record is concerned, how can you "PROVE" the record accurate ?

The numbers encoded in the Great Pyramid speak for themselves, we can "PROVE" these numbers.

You can not "PROVE" the archaeological record.

Again for the 50th time,

You have two choices here, the archaeological record, or GOD's record.

I would never accept the archaeological records over GOD's record.
You can if you want, but I don't.



[edit on 10-1-2006 by Lastday Prophet]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

The numbers encoded in the Great Pyramid speak for themselves, we can "PROVE" these numbers.


Go on then.

While you're at it, you might also expand upon just *why* Satan would benefit from or desire this "deception".

I will take up this issue too:


I agree that the other Pyramids are Egyptian, but they are all inferior copies of The Great Pyramid and have no mathematics encoded in them whatsoever, proving that they were not built by the same people.


If you look at the lihk I supplied a few pages back there is a study of mathematical proportions in pyramids which concludes that Pi and Phi are encoded in a great many types of possible pyramid, and is due to the intrinsic nature of a stable pyramid in its own right and not some mystical message. As for the other numbers claimed to be encoded in the pyramids, I and others here, have said that we not accept the assertion that the "unknown" numbers are in fact encoded in the pyramids. Please prove it.

Besides which, even were your assertion true (which I do not accept at present), at least as far as numbers like Pi are concerned, the conclusion is not. To illustrate from the world of medieval Western music (not all that distant in time). Many composers encoded numerical values into their music. For example the composer Guillaume Dufay encoded into one motet the dimensions of Brunelleschi's dome for the Florence Duomo, as the piece was written for the dedication of that building. It is really rather astonishing. To conclude that any music not encoding numbers is therefore somehow inferior is nonsense. There was (arguably) greater music before and aftewards which concerned itself with different aesthetic questions and explored other avenues. It is called culture and change. If cultures did not develop and change, and we lived in the world you advocated, then we would be architecturally paralysed nowadays, unable to build any construction unless we surpassed the mathematical symbolism of the greatest precursor. We would be obliged to build our greatest cathedrals and skyscrapers to encode the Schroedinger equation in their thickness of putty in the windowframes and string theory into the shapes of their heating ducting. Or build nothing lasting.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by d60944]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Lastday Prophet, you are not using a Cubit then.

You can't use an "average cubit", you can not make a number up to base your arguement around and that is what you have done there. So how do you work out an average? Did you bother to add all of the numbers up and divide them by the amount of cubits? Or did you just take a number to help to proove your point?

I am sure there are rules against posting misleading informationg and to me that is what you are openly doing. You've made up all of this and give no basis on how you came by it...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

While you're at it, you might also expand upon just *why* Satan would benefit from or desire this "deception".


That answer is simple, satan does not want people to believe that there is a GOD. By destroying the evidence in and around the Pyramid he could hide the truth that it was GOD'S HOUSE.

If it was left as it originally was there would be no denying of the existence of GOD.

The Sphinx is a Cherubim, a symbol of the power and glory of GOD.
This is why the Egyptian Pharaohs made imitations of the Sphinx with their heads on them as a sign of power.

As far as the cubit is concerned here is some info on cubits


a historic unit of distance frequently mentioned in the Bible. The word comes from the Latin cubitum, "elbow," because the unit represents the length of a man's forearm from his elbow to the tip of his outstretched middle finger. This distance tends to be about 18 inches or roughly 45 centimeters. In ancient times, the cubit was usually defined to equal 24 digits or 6 palms. The Egyptian royal or "long" cubit, however, was equal to 28 digits or 7 palms. In the English system, the digit is conventionally identified as 3/4 inch; this makes the ordinary cubit exactly 18 inches (45.72 centimeters). The Roman cubit was shorter, about 44.4 centimeters (17.5 inches). The ordinary Egyptian cubit was just under 45 centimeters, and most authorities estimate the royal cubit at about 52.35 centimeters (20.61 inches).


I use a rounded off royal cubit, since there is no exact length for a cubit.
20 is very close to the "ESTIMATED" length of a Royal Cubit which is 20.61


[edit on 10-1-2006 by Lastday Prophet]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Do you therefore think that if the Sphinx had wings then the world would be converted? (You have also ignored my previous post concerning non-winged royal lions in sculpture both from Egypt and the surrounding empires of antiquity; and concerning pharaoh's heads on lions whith no wings).

Aside from that, why would the knowledge that any random site you care to choose in the world was the site for Solomon's temple be any more convincing and worthy of drawing people to God than any other?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
No I don't think the world would be converted if the Sphinx still had it's wings, they just would be "Without Excuse"

If you would have taken the time to read, you would have seen where I stated that the 144,000 original casing stones that were on the Great Pyramid had writing on them, which told of the builders and gave prophecies.

These two together would have proven the exsistence of GOD, and men would be without excuse if they ignored these facts.

You don't read either, I did reply to your question.


The Sphinx is a Cherubim, a symbol of the power and glory of GOD.
This is why the Egyptian Pharaohs made imitations of the Sphinx with their heads on them as a sign of power.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
I use a rounded off royal cubit, since there is no exact length for a cubit.
20 is very close to the "ESTIMATED" length of a Royal Cubit which is 20.61


Where did you learn maths? As you said, it is 20.61 when rounded that makes it 21 not 20. You are clearly spreading false information to help boost your cause.

Do you also know that the casing stones still exist? They are on the Mosque's in Egypt, after an earthquake in 1301 the stones were set loose and Bahri Sultan An-Nasir Nasir-ad-Din al-Hasan in 1356 had them removed so that they could build mosques. You can actually still see the script on them, but they are too jumbled up and smashed up to re-create the full "story" however you can see the hieroglyphs...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I am generally rather open minded and accepting of differeng viewpoints, but eventually I really have to draw the line.

You are proposing that History is wrong, Archaeological evidence is wrong, the Egyptian people are wrong, the Hebrew people are wrong, Christians are wrong, and quite a number of other assertions. If true, this is the biggest conspiracy in the whole wide world, with nobody at all to show who would back up your argument.

There is such a thing as "Immense burden of proof", and you haven't provided enough facts to crush even the smallest of metaphorical insects with.

All I see is a bunch of speculation you are trying to pass off as "Gospel Truth" when really it is just your wild-eyed opinion on the matter.

Egypt is still one of the oldest countries on earth to still have the same name as it did thousands of years ago.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
alright prophet, how can the pyramids be attributed to solomon if there are records of them BEFORE his reign?

i've asked this before, but you haven't addressed it.

there are several documents pertaining to its existence before solomon was born.

did the devil plant them?

were these people hallucinating?

did solomon go back in time to build them?

until you explain this, your theory is dead.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Madness, you were not here 3000 years ago, how do you "PROVE" that record is accurate ? You can't and that's my point, I don't trust the historical record.

There are others that share the same opinion as I do.

www.pyramidsarenotamystery.net...

actually this link takes you to the area of information that you want.

www.pyramidsarenotamystery.net...




[edit on 10-1-2006 by Lastday Prophet]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Madness, you were not here 3000 years ago, how do you "PROVE" that record is accurate ? You can't and that's my point, I don't trust the historical record.


Lots of people do not trust you.

The fact you made up the length of the cubit and rounded it down, when it should have been up to justify your point show this.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Yes, but don't you see? Last Day Prophet, he doesn't believe in such nonsense as "Facts", facts come from books, and books lack truthiness.

Truthiness comes from the heart... and common sense comes from the gut... and his gut says that the facts from his heart are undeniable, that Solomon built the pyramids and the Egyptians are just nasty history thieves.

And how can one argue with that? Certainly not with facts...

I love Stephen Colbert.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
My gut tells me that since Solomon was descended from the Hebrews who fled Egypt, and since Abraham and Sarah, Joseph of the colourful coat fame, and Moses, all spent time in Egypt, the Israelites knew the difference between Israel and Egypt. They are two separate nations. I agree that the Giza pyramid is likely the oldest one, and that it is a miraculous piece of work, but, by virtue of where it sits, it is highly unlikely that Egyptians did not build it. Why would anyone build their magnum opus in a foreign land? If Solomon built Giza, and by the way, I wasn't there 3000 years ago either, I will personally apologize to God for crediting the wrong crew.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
You have two choices here, the archaeological record, or GOD's record.
I would never accept the archaeological records over GOD's record.
You can if you want, but I don't.

I choose the archaeological record, as I have a degree in History. It's factual, it's logical, there is proof on the ground and it makes sense. There is no proof - of any kind - that Solomon built the Great Pyramid. You have not been able to provide any proof either. Face facts - Solomon was not in charge of Egypt! He never had any power over Egypt! There is no mention of him there in the temple carvings in any Egyptian temple and Manetho does not include his name in the list of kings. Solomon was the king of a greater Israel at a time when (luckily) the great powers of the region were busy doing other things, which is why the Bible mentions him so prominently. It also fails to mention the Great Pyramid entirely, which is odd if he built it.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
how can you not trust the historical record? how could something be recorded as being there not be true? we can prove the age of documents, and if a document over 3000 years old says something in relation to the great pyramid then the great pyramid itself is over 3000 years old.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
this is completely unrelated to my last post.

the only record of the wealth of solomon is the bible, and it is most likely exaggerated.

also, solomon might have been wise, but that doesn't give him any engineering know-how. the bible doesn't even say he had any knowledge in engineering, just that he had people build a temple.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
He may have been Lebanese??? I know it is said he brought in cedars from Lebanon. Hiram Abiff or something similar, was his name, and he is well known to Freemasons. I think he was one of them himself, back then they had a different name, probably. The temple was also the sight of his grisly end they say. Three different apprentices each dealt him a blow to the head, which together was enough to finish him off. I am not sure, but I think they wanted to be let in on some secrets he knew, and he wouldn't tell them. Well, killing him doesn't seem like a high probability plan to learn them. It is all quite unprovable as far as I know, but that is what I recall.




top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join