PROOF OF GOD

Anderson is a Jehovah's Witness/Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society member.He has created a post which essentially says that the Isaiah verse does not mean what it says and he defines "altar" using only one of the definitions of that word. I have already addressed this specific issue early on in this debate. I suggest Anderson acquaint himself with that portion of the debate.In the meantime here is a site which evidences the fraud and bias of Jehovah's Witness concerning the Pyramid. I have cut and pasted the conclusion.Forbidden

em.. does anyone else see the rich vein of possible humour in a creationist saying "we can't trust their testimony because of reglious bias".*Kettles and pots?* Not that I'd use testimony as a form of evidence anyway AND THIS IS NOT A DIRECT QUOTE FROM WILLOWTREE BUT I FEEL SUMS THE POSITION UP VERY NICELY. EDITED: DUE TO WILLOW-TREES COMMENT BELOW.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-08-2004 03:22 PM

From "Pyramidology" Book III, page 1129
by Dr. Adam Rutherford in Egypt, 1925,1950,1963,1964,1965"The figure of 5448.7360 PI is the height of the GP geometrically derived. Deduct the Rectification Factor multiplied by the tangent of the Pyramidic 'pi' angle (Casing angle). Expressed arithmetically:5813.0125-364.2765=5448.7360 PI"The Pyramid's summit platform therefore lies within the 5449th PI above the pavement level at the base and in the Bible this number is the identification number of Isaiah 19:19,20" END RUTHERFORD QUOTE.The Rectificaion Factor was explained in the preceding pages. I do not know how to communicate these multiple pages.

In the name of accuracy, your italics does not say what I actually said.

Corrected - please see altered post.

WILLOWTREE- As a clarification: I believe you DID address the issue of use of the term "altar," but you DID NOT address the issue of the timing/future tense of Isaiah referring to an existing structure. Again, your link does NOT match your argument, since Russell apparently believes that the Pyramid was God's creation, though the site describes potential disputes in interpretation and math.Anderson is arguing that there is no Biblical link to the Pyramid, which is the opposite of Russell's assertions - if anything, you've shown that Anderson is indeed thinking for himself, and is not following the teaching of Russell on this point.Whether or not you realize it, you've been posting links that contradict and refute your own arguments - this is not the first time...

Yes, especially since the person WILLOWTREE is calling fraudulent DOES believe that the pyramid is God's creation...

Interesting, WILLOWTREE - I believe what Rutherford's "Rectification Factor" may possibly represent the height of the phantom capstone, and that the 5813 number refers to the height of the pyramid's geometric apex (same as the total height assuming a capstone).Does the text give any indication that this is the case?Also when were the measurements made, and by whom?

From: http://home.hiwaay.net/~jalison/30th.htmlUnlike the diagrams above, the earth is not perfectly spherical. It is slightly wider at the equator and slightly flattened at the poles. This is primarily due to the centrifugal force generated by the spin of the earth on it's axis. As a result, the curvature of the earth is greater towards the equator, and less towards the poles, causing the length of degrees of latitude to increase very slightly from the equator to the poles. The length of one degree of latitude from the equator to 1?/span> north is 68.71 miles. The length of one degree of latitude from 89?/span> north to the north pole is 69.4 miles. 68.71 miles is equal to 362776 feet, divided by sixty equals 6046 feet per minute of latitude, divided by two equals 3023 feet for one-half minute of latitude at the equator. This is the precise length of the perimeter of the Great Pyramid.With baselengths of 440 cubits per side, the perimeter of the Great Pyramid is 1,760 cubits long. The ancient Egyptian cubit equals one and a half ancient Egyptian feet. The 1,760 cubit perimeter of the Great Pyramid is 2,640 ancient Egyptian feet long. Since this distance equals one half of one minute of latitude at the equator, 5,280 ancient Egyptian feet (the same number of feet found in the English mile) equals the length of one minute of latitude at the equator.Petrie's measure of the Egyptian cubit was 20.62 inches ( .005 inches). Given a measure of 20.625 inches for the cubit, the ancient Egyptian foot was equal to 13.75 inches, or 1.1458 English feet. The equatorial diameter of the earth is 7,926 miles. A mile is 5,280 feet long, so 7,926 miles is 41,850,000 English feet long. Given an ancient Egyptian foot equal to 1.1458 English feet, the number of ancient Egyptian feet in the diameter of the earth may be calculated by dividing the number of English feet by 1.1458:41,850,000 ?1.1458 = 36,525,000 (ancient Egyptian feet in the equatorial diameter of the earth)There are 365.25 days in a year. The number of days in a year times 100,000 is 36,525,000.Degrees of longitude vary from a maximum length of 69.17 miles at the equator to zero miles at the poles. 69.17 miles is equal to 365,217 English feet, this is also a nearly exact expression of the number of days in a year, times 1,000.As shown by the Vesica Pisces diagrams, a degree of longitude at the 30th parallel is equal to a degree of longitude at the equator times the square root of three over two (.866):69.17 miles x .866 = 59.9 milesThe most current Global Positioning Survey data shows that one degree of longitude is exactly 60 miles long at 29.92?/span> north, in the immediate vicinity of Giza and the other pyramid fields just north of ancient Memphis. At this latitude, one minute of longitude is equal to one mile.A number of additional correspondences exist between the measures of the Great Pyramid in cubits and measures of the earth in miles. The equatorial circumference of the earth is 24,900 miles. The perimeter of the Great Pyramid is 1,760 cubits. 1,760 times the square root of two (1.4142) equals 2,490. The mean radius of the earth is 3,960 miles. The height of the Great Pyramid is 280 cubits. 280 times the square root of two equals 396. One half of the radius of the earth is 1,980 miles. The base lengths of the Great Pyramid at the height that the upper shafts exit the pyramid are 198 cubits. END LINK.

WILLOWTREE- you should clarify-From your message #258: From your most recent message: Which one of your sources do you want us to believe for these calculations, Rutherford, Petrie, or just the one that gives us the correct answer for a given problem?

The underlying basis of my argument was to expose the dishonesty of Russell and then show how Anderson, a Jehovah's Witness, believes contrary to one of the most respected persons in the JW movement.Anderson, whether he admits it or not believes the GP claims to be of the devil, which at its foundation is a belief in the supernatural - source is the only issue.

The measurements were made by Rutherford, this was the first information typed in the post you are responding to. I think you might be correct - I am impressed.The Rectification Factor figure is 286.1 PIRutherford has already stated that there was no capstone and he cited Pliny the Elder and Diodorus as confirming this.The point is that there is no capstone and there is no evidence that there ever was a capstone - it is ASSUMED.Rutherford says that IF the capstone were to of been installed it would of overlapped the platform by, guess what figure ?286.1 PIThat 286.1 PI is the exact location of the original door to the left of the center axis north. It is only realized/corrected when the Grand Gallery expands upward WHERE the Well Shaft breaks into the Grand Gallery. That exact place in the propehtic chronograph is 33 AD which perfectly symbolizes the message of the Bible that Christ's death and Resurrection "rectified" the "error of sin".

Your source is using numbers to 8 significant figures!To measure the height of the GP to this level is a bit suspect to begin with. To claim to measure it when it has been eroded and is rough is even more suspect.The "geometric means" better be a heck of a lot better than using a stick stuck in the sand. This is gettting less convincing not more.

Pink:Your 2nd cut and paste blue block references a specific claim within the link text.Please go back to the post of mine that you responded to and re-read MY blue block point/conclusion at the end of the post. I specifically said in boldface "My only point is...."

However none of the number playing has anything to do with the claims we are discussing. When you have dealt with those claims we can progress to others.Note: Your source uses "precise" in what may be a careless way. Error ranges will be necessary at some point.