Don't even bother trying to heal me, *no directed name calling allowed with ATS per ATS TACoU*
Spouting biblical passages when you probably don't even understand their import or the context that they were written in shows a complete ignorance.

If your faith in the Bible was that good, that infallible, that pure and that bloody believable you wouldn't have to defend it in the first place. As it is, you just sound like any other religious nut out there who has swallowed a Bible and is just repeating things back parrot fashion without having any inkling as to what the import of the words are.

You've posted a theory that doesn't even stand up to the merest scrutiny and now we're all expected to believe you because you quote the Bible at us. You haven't even bothered any other line of defence. It's lazy and ignorant and makes your whole first post a complete waste of time.

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath BLINDED the minds of them which believe NOT, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
John 12:40 He hath BLINDED their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. This is why many cannot percieve this truth.

I'm beginning to like this guy!

He has absolutely no thoughts of his own!

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
It all boils down to this question, Which is True ? The Bible account of what happened or The Historical records of man. I personally would never accept the record of man as oppossed to the Bible.

what it boils down to is one (1) source or multible sources and you are only going by one (1) source rejecting all others. that means you are following a closed system of idea's to both proof and disproof so its all idle.
the only proof I see is your projections onto vague words in some book, its not hard to do really the KKK did it .

How do you say I have no proof ? explain this to me. In the Kings Chamber in the Great Pyramid, there is a COFFER, this coffer is the EXACT SIZE of The ARK of the Covenant as recorded in the Bible 2 1/2 cubits x 1 1/2 cubits x 1 1/2 cubits high. That's 51 in. long by 31 in. wide and 31 in. tall. second fact: The length of the Kings Chamber is 34 feet. King Solomon made a pair of Golden Cherubs, the wings of the Cherubim spread out touched the walls of the inner room of God's House. take a quess at what the wingspan of the Cherubim equal ? 20 cubits which is, you quessed it 34 ft. this is physical proof that the Kings Chamber is the Holy of Holies of God's House. if fits perfectly. The Coffer sat near the wall, there was a Mercy Seat of Gold on top, the Ten Commandments were placed within and the wings of the Cherubim overshadowed it. No one could figure out the purpose of the Coffer, but it is all recorded in the Bible. These facts alone are astounding and there is no way it could be a coencidence.

It is a rather interesting idea, you have to admit that. It is as plausable as any other Pyramid Theory on the Internet or ATS.

In consideration of the Pyramids' age, I'd have to say this: I lean towards the age of 10-12500 years old, what with the erosion factures of the Sphinx and how ancient sites aligned with constellations at that time period, but there is also a couple other possibilities...

With erosion factures, wouldn't the Great Deluge have done the same thing? Depending, or course, when that would have happened...

King Solomon... now, can we agree that the First Book of Genesis was taken, almost word for word, from older Sumerian texts? There are MANY key elements in the Old Testament which ties directly to Sumerian counterparts... but who's to say the Sumerians didn't recieve their tales from older sources?

The reason I mention this is that there are alot of fables or parables in the Old Testaments... many retellings of older stories or legends. Could not, perhaps, the telling of Solomon was nothing more than one of those retellings? Or what if King Solomon was merely an archtype figure, used to describe many events, to give credence to an individual? Almost along the lines of bragging rights.

I like this idea. Do I believe it? I can't say yet... I'd have to check things for myself. But I do like the idea that people are responsible for the Pyramids instead of aliens (we just don't give ancient people enough credit).

Then again... since it is suspected that Hebrews were used to build them, it is entirely possible that they brought those ideas/prints/working knowledge with them, and incoorporated it into a story.

So King Solomon built the Pyramids and then built the Temple?
He built pagan monuments in a pagan land, over 1000 years before he supposedly existed?



Logic would dictate that the Temple dimensions were copied from the Pyramids later.

Soothsayer, I'm one of those who believes that the story of Solomon could be symbolic and it's possible that neither he nor the Temple existed. But Solomon doesn't come from Genesis. He comes much later on in Kings.


[Edited on 24-3-2004 by Leveller]

BTW the Israelis did not have a land until the UN gave them Israel, but God says in the bible he gave them Israel long ago. Why did your God wait until the UN gave the lands of Israel to his people when in the bible it says he gave them the land long before that?

The bible is a copilation of many ancient texts, some were hebrew, some were more ancient sumerian. It was a copilation of many books which Constantine ordered to be made, not God, in the year 33AD. (if i remember correctly)

Constantine gave his scribes an amount of time to put together as many ancient books they could find from an extensive list of ancient texts, many of those texts did not make it into what is now the bible. Appart from that there were mistakes made as the bible was translated from one language to another throughout time, and some things the church decided to take out since they saw fit that it was not good for the church that those things were found in the book.

Reincarnation was a belief among ancient Christians up to the 13th century. In the movie Robin Hood, prince of thieves, Kevin Costner for the first time shows that Christians before the 13th century believed in reincarnation. When Robin asks his brother (Robin did not know yet it was his brother) "What wrong did I do to you in another life to hate me so?"

In one of his latest movies "Dragonfly" the concept of reincarnation was tossed in again by Kevin.

Also up to that time angels were not drawn with wings, but looked pretty much human, and there are many religious paintings that date before the 13th century in which strange objects can be seen floating in the background.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
it is an interesting theory, but how do you explain all the artifacts, scrolls and carvings that show the egyptians building and claiming the purpose of the pyramids was that of a burial chamber?

There are no artifacts, scrolls, or carvings that show the building of the Great Pyramid or claim that it was used as a burial chamber.

Hi, I'm new to the forum, but not to the subject.

Lastday Prophet, your refusal to allow for any error in the bible and to take the bible as the litteral truth pretty much destroys your credibility on this and most subjects as far as I'm concerned.

The very first sign of wisdom in a man is the acknowledgement of the fact that he may be wrong. Just because you want to believe it does not make it true.

I find these subjects facinating, but I find your assertions to be unconvincing in this matter, especially since you only use one source (the bible) for reference and consign all other information on the subject to be the work of Satan.

You my friend are not a seeker of truth. You believe you have already found it. True seekers know that it is not so much from the answer that spiritial growth comes, as we are likely just too limited to fully understand, but from the search itself.

Sorry, I'm pontificating....

Peace

" Lastday Prophet, your refusal to allow for any error in the bible and to take the bible as the litteral truth pretty much destroys your credibility on this and most subjects as far as I'm concerned." . ..Does your refusal to allow for any error in the Historical records destroy your credibility ?

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Lastday Prophet]

I read a book last year, "The Puzzle of Ancient Man" by Donald Chittick. Here's his basic summary of explaining all kinds of discrepancies in archaelogy with the Bible.

He starts off with a sort of reverse understanding of human developement. We usually see humans as starting off dumb and using simple tools -- "ug ug" says the caveman, that motif. The author posits that mankind was extraordinary back in the day. Lifespans reached into the 900's. In Genesis, it states that man before the flood could basically think it up and it was possible. Their limit was their imagination.

But gradually as time wore on, especially after the flood, mankind got kinda, well, dumber. Perhaps knowledge on some topics increased, but overall our POTENTIAL decreased.

So this is why we see so many glorious and amazing architecture pre-flood. Then after the flood, God commands mankind to spread out and repopulate the earth. Many do and they start many different cultures around the world. Then Nimrod defies those orders and builds Babel. We usually think of Babel as being a great tower but the author explains that the hebrew word used can just as easily mean something to gaze at the stars ("reach the heavens" has new meaning). That culture, we have discovered, had strong astrologic and astronomic interests. It comes as no suprise that when God dispersed everyone from Babel that all the new civiliazations that sprouted up all over the world, from the Chinese to the Incas and Maya, all had a strong interest in astronomy and astrology. Also its why we see pyramids in those places.

I don't recall specifically whom he said built the pyramids, but I think he theorized that perhaps Adam and early mankind built it (perhaps the size of the covenant was divined to the architects of the time?).

What we do discover is that the Giza pyramids were the first ones built. Usually you'd expect the grandest to be the final ones built and the crude ones first. You'd expect a shack to be built by a civilization before a skyscraper. But that's not what we see in Egypt. It seems that the smaller ones are the ones that have more definitive culturally egyptian purpose, use and design. Seems they maybe copied the pre-flood folks without the capacity to mirror their grandure and genius.

There's a LOT more to what he says and I STRONGLY recommend reading the book -- it's a quick but intelligent read.

Hope this all helped.

Lastday, I allow for absolutely everything. I don't know that you are wrong, I just believe that you are...

Let me go a little further. Yes, I do allow for error in any document written by man, bible or not. I'm just saying that you are basing your arguement on your belief in something (the bible). You are using a source that I consider to be unreliable (the bible) to prove your theory that King Solomon build the Great Pyramid. For that reason, I don't buy it. Now, if you had a number of different sources that supported what you are using from the bible, that might be more convincing.

A discussion on Knowledge vs. Belief is for a different forum I think. I'll let you get back to your scriptures...

This part of the puzzle ties it all together, it matchs Exactly with what is recorded in the Bible. 23 And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high(17 ft.) 24 And five cubits(8 1/2 ft.) was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits.
25 And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size.
26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub.
27 And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house.(20 cubits or 34 ft. explain this to me. In the Kings Chamber in the Great Pyramid, there is a COFFER, this coffer is the EXACT SIZE of The ARK of the Covenant as recorded in the Bible 2 1/2 cubits x 1 1/2 cubits x 1 1/2 cubits high. That's 51 in. long by 31 in. wide and 31 in. tall. second fact: The length of the Kings Chamber is 34 feet. In the verses above we see that King Solomon made a pair of Golden Cherubs, the wings of the Cherubim spread out touched the walls of the inner room of God's House the wingspan of the Cherubim that he made was 34 ft. This is physical proof that the Kings Chamber is the Holy of Holies of God's House. if fits perfectly. The Coffer sat near the wall, there was a Mercy Seat of Gold on top, the Ten Commandments were placed within and the wings of the Cherubim overshadowed it. No one could figure out the purpose of the Coffer, but it is all recorded in the Bible. These facts alone are astounding and there is no way it could be a coencidence.

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Lastday Prophet]

As far as the timeline discrepancy between the Pyramids and Solomon's reign (or any alternative construction time) goes, lets remember that many chemical dating methods are shoddy at best. Bug a geology professor about the inaccuracy of certain forms of isotopic dating (carbon 14 is the most famous) and they'll concede it's rather useless. (note that carbon dating can only be used on organic material such as fossilized bones and plants)

To be fair, I don't know what dating method was used on the pyramids, but I do know that whatever the method of isotopic dating, it always gives a slew of results. The scientist or archeologist then chooses which approximate age best fits the rest of their theory.


While I agree that its naive to refute science just becaue it seems to conflict with one's reading of any scripture, its EQUALLY closed-minded to lambast someone as an ignorant zealot and dismiss their scriptures as errant without supporting such accusations.


Can anyone who disagrees with this theory please address the valid points concerning the Ark of the Covenant, etc? All I'm seeing is ad hominem attacks on some well-intentioned Bible-thumpers (to clarify, I'm a Christian too). Let's keep it civil.

Since it is known that Solomon's reign was after the pyramids were built, it is more probable to believe that he copied the designs of the great pyramid and not the other way around.

Also, there have been many finds of pyramids underwater, in Japan, off the Cuban coast (around 2,200 feet underwater) etc. These pyramids are way older than the pyramids at Giza. So the design of the pyramid seems to be older, althou some designs differ in that there are step pyramids and such, but, your theory holds no ground.

And please keep the religious opinions out of this. If you are going to use religion as a response to everything then every post would turn into "I am right because my God says so, and you are going to burn in hell because you don't believe it...."

Note also that Solomon supposedly build the house to the Elohim in Jerusalem. Are you saying that ancient Jerusalem was in what is now Gaza?

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Muaddib]

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Note also that Solomon supposedly build the house to the Elohim in Jerusalem. Are you saying that ancient Jerusalem was in what is now Gaza?

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Muaddib]

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Muaddib]

The great pyramid is in Giza, not Gaza--which makes it even farther away from Jerusalem.

My bad, spelled it wrong. Thanks for correcting my mistake.